Transport Committee on June 3rd, 2010

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

A point of order.

It's on relevance, Mr. Chair. He's talking about something that has nothing to do with the amendment we have in front of us.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Again, I would just ask Mr. Volpe to refer back to the amendment.

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

The new amendment has language that is so completely different from the last one that I think if you superimposed the words from it on the previous amendment, every single one of them would coincide. Somebody called this chicanery, and another person said it's an appropriate tactic of politics, but it's probably brought to a fine art by members opposite.

Let me talk to the relevance of “planning, designing, constructing, installing and maintaining”. A council--a nameless council--is going to be responsible for the maintenance of a monument that represents all Canadians, a nameless council that can do anything it wants with the funds that are raised, a nameless council that will go forward and erect a monument that it could, at any time it wanted, anywhere in this country, plan, design, construct, install, and then even maintain ad infinitum, and forever be responsible for this, when the Government of Canada is fully equipped to do all of this, when the Government of Canada, through the House of Commons, has already expressed that it is in favour of covering the cost, the planning, the designing, the constructing, the installing, and the maintaining of a monument in perpetuity. Government members want to deprive the Canadian public of the opportunity for the Government of Canada to do its job, to do what it was obligated to do by the vote in the House of Commons.

Mr. Chairman, I can't believe that the government members want to go out into the Canadian public and crow that they are—

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Jean on a point of order.

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

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, it's the same point of order as the last 25 points of order. He's not relevant, Mr. Chair, to the amendment we have in front of us. I know he wants to continue to filibuster. You can call it anything you like, but what he's trying to do is delay this bill from happening. We've waited long enough. I think Canadians have waited long enough. Clearly, Mr. Chair, if he's going to refer again to things that are contained in the bill, I would ask that he be accurate.

For those people listening, I would ask that they look at the original bill and the new bill and the amendments by the government and see the differences. They are exactly what the Jewish community has told us they want, and that's what we're putting forward.

I would just ask that the member be relevant.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you.

Again, I would ask Mr. Volpe to debate the amendment. I do have a list of people who are starting to line up to speak, but I would just ask that you be relevant to the amendment.

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

Sure. Mr. Chairman, I'm trying very hard to address the new information. But he's introducing new information, so he can't speak to the Jewish community's support for the new information. He can't. I don't know whether that's relevant or whether it's chicanery or whatever, but certainly I have to address the issue on the point of whether we're talking about cost, planning, designing, construction.

I've asked him where the business plan is. Where's the business plan for all of this? It's an amendment that came out of the blue, completely out of the blue, and there's no plan at all. He wants a responsible committee of Parliament to go back to the House of Commons and say, “Here's a blank cheque.”

We don't know what we're talking about. We don't know who's going to do it. We don't know how much it's going to cost. We think the idea is great. We're not sure. We thought it was great when it passed the House of Commons, but then we introduced nine amendments, one for every clause, to make sure that we wouldn't support it. Then we're going to accuse the members of the opposition of filibustering for trying to be true to what the House of Commons said, to be true to what the people of Canada want to do with respect to this Holocaust memorial.

So here he is, the parliamentary secretary, talking to us about a small council to do that which the Government of Canada has already committed to doing.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Jean on a point of order.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Again, I would ask for relevance. I just want to know what is different today from when Mr. Volpe stood up in the House and voted for the bill, which said, “The Council shall spearhead a fundraising campaign to cover the cost of constructing the Monument.” Now he has changed his mind. I would like to know. I understand he has to speak to the amendment, Mr. Chair, but since he's so flowery in his communication, why has his mind changed today from what it was when he stood up in the House and supported the idea of the council spearheading a fundraising campaign? What has changed today from when he voted before? Why has it changed?

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you.

Mr. Dhaliwal on the same point of order.

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

Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chair, the parliamentary secretary, Mr. Jean, suggests that this amendment was already included in the bill. Then why did he need to bring it back here? He should be able to withdraw it and work on the original wording that Mr. Volpe and every other member of Parliament, of all stripes, voted to support.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Bevington on the same point of order.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Yes, I'm having trouble with Mr. Jean's logic here because it states quite clearly in clause 6, “The Minister, in cooperation...shall oversee the planning and design of the Monument”. So the minister would oversee the planning, he would come up with a plan and a design for a monument. Then “The Council shall spearhead a fundraising campaign to cover the cost of constructing the Monument.” So the minister determines what the design is going to be of the monument, then the council will spearhead the fundraising to construct the monument, and after that the monument will then become part of the National Capital Commission, and they would handle the ongoing maintenance and....

So the motion entered into by the government is quite different from what was in the bill here, because the bill quite clearly puts the minister responsible for overseeing the design. When you oversee the design, you establish what the construction is going to be; then you go out and fundraise for the construction, which is a specific amount of money that has been determined by the minister through the design process. What we've done here is turn this all into one clump.

And if anybody has ever been involved in this kind of process, they would realize that this is quite a different approach. You have this council that's going to go out and cover the cost for the design and the development; they're going to do this whole thing themselves. So where's the government in this? Where is the public oversight into what this monument would be? I think that's the critical element of why this amendment is different from what the bill says.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

I know we're moving down the path of debate on a point of order. I have Monsieur Laframboise and Mr. Watson, and then I'll rule, and we'll get back to the debate on the amendment.

Monsieur Laframboise.

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

Mr. Chair, the point of order had to do with the fact that we are now in the middle of a filibuster. The Liberal Party has no improvements to make. The amendment as presented just asks us to add funds to cover the costs of planning, designing and constructing the monument. I support the people from the Jewish community when they say that, if they are going to go to the trouble of setting up a fundraising campaign, they will include maintaining the monument as well as building it.

If the Liberals had made an amendment that suggested contributing to the costs rather than covering them, we could have assumed that the government would cover them if ever there was not enough money. Mr. Volpe argues that we have no plan, no figures and no analysis. He had none either when he made his amendments. So we then have no choice but to respect the requests of the community.

That is what the Bloc Québécois is doing. They are telling us that, since they are going to be conducting a fundraising campaign, it will not just be for construction, but also for maintenance, design and installation. I think that is great.

Then, if you want the government to cover the costs… I still maintain that the government is responsible, under the terms that have been submitted to us. If you have amendments to improve it, I am open to them. But we see that the Liberals are opposed to that. They insist on opposing what the community wants. That is their choice, which is why we have this filibuster. The Liberal Party has no intention of improving this bill, but rather seeking political advantage through their filibuster.

I am ready to stay here. I am going to take on the Liberals anytime, anywhere. I have no problem with that. I can take all the time we need.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

I'm going to rule that it's not a point of order, and I think we were going towards debate. I think there has been good information put forward.

We are discussing the amendment, and I'll refer back to Mr. Volpe to continue his debate and relevancy to the amendment.

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

I thank my colleagues for their intervention, because, quite frankly, we want to clarify who is going to assume, under the act, all the costs for the planning, design, construction, installation, and maintenance of the monument.

Contrary to what Monsieur Laframboise just mentioned a moment ago, we have no need to introduce an amendment to identify who would do that because we've already accepted in the amendments, and the bill, unamended clauses that the government, through the minister, be responsible for all of those. That in fact is one of the basic principles of the bill, that the government have that responsibility for the public of Canada, not, as he says, for the Jewish community, but for everyone.

That's the basic element here. Is it going to be the Canadian public who are responsible for the planning, design, erection, and maintenance of this, or is it going to be only one particular community?

The Canadian public, through the House of Commons, said no, this is a Canadian issue. This is a Canadian values issue. This is something that reflects the Canadian public, and therefore the Canadian public, through its ministers, is going to assume that responsibility.

I don't need to introduce an amendment on behalf of the Liberals to say something otherwise. We agree that's going to be the case. That's why we would object to this. This particular amendment says no, it should be a council. If they aren't capable of raising those funds, the monument doesn't get built. If they don't do it in a timely fashion, it might not get built before those who really want to see it built are there to see it built.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Jean on a point of order.

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

Relevance. There's nothing in this clause that deals with time period.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

I won't rule it a point of order, but again, we are discussing an amendment to clause 7. Again, I would ask Mr. Volpe to stay relevant to that amendment, please.

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

Who pays is a fundamental component of the expenditure plan envisaged by the bill. The government has, with this plan, with this amendment, turned around and said the financial responsibility lies with the council and with the individuals we put on the council and their ability to raise those funds. In fact, they might even take a look at spearheading a campaign to cover the costs.

Why would you treat particular members of a community differently from all the others who have received a monument in the national capital region? Why? Why would you say that this group of people, now on a council, now have to assume the financial liabilities associated with the planning, design, construction, installation, and maintenance of a monument when the Government of Canada, directly or through the National Capital Commission, already has the funds available and is already able to do all of this legislatively without even having to have either the bill or the amendment?

I think the government is really stalling on the intention expressed by the House of Commons. They don't want to build this, and they're hoping that the members of the Jewish community who may end up being on the council might be capable of raising the funds for we don't know what type of monument. We don't know the size because we don't know the design. We don't know the planning and we haven't got the construction plan yet either.

People are asking us to buy a pig in a poke. That's what this particular clause says. It says trust us. Trust them. Don't worry, there's not going to be anything wrong. The council is going to be responsible for everything. But you know what, Mr. Chairman? I'm not sure that people who look at this logically and look at it in terms of procedure would ever accept that such a clause should be part of a bill. It wasn't a part of the bill before, and the bill passed with every member of Parliament.... I'm constrained; I can't name them all or say who wasn't there, but everybody who was present supported it, including all the members of cabinet.

It's not as if the executive branch didn't already assume a principled position of supporting this financially. Why would the government withdraw that financial support with this amendment? Why would it say we no longer want to incur the costs of planning? Why would it say we no longer want to incur the costs of the design? Why would it refuse to absorb the costs of construction?

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Jean on a point of order.

[An hon. member]

It's completely on topic.

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

It absolutely isn't on topic. And it's inaccurate, because Mr. Volpe voted in favour before that ”The Council shall spearhead a fundraising campaign to cover the cost of constructing the Monument.” He just said that the government should be paying for it. Well, he voted for that. He voted for it in the House. Every single member of his party who was in the House at the time voted for that. So what is different today from yesterday? Why were you in favour then and not now?

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

That's not a point of order, but I'll ask Mr. Volpe to continue, please.