Transport Committee on June 3rd, 2010

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

I listened to the parliamentary secretary just swallow himself whole. He voted for exactly the same thing and then he introduces this amendment, the second time--I'm sorry, I'll slap myself on the wrist--a new amendment with exactly the same vocabulary, in exactly the same order, to try to introduce and get something across that he couldn't do before, that he withdrew because he recognized the error of his logic. And now he comes back to say, “Well, the Liberals voted for this, the NDP, the Bloc. We, the Conservatives, voted for it and now we actually want something else.” That's exactly my question. Why do you want something else? We were happy with what was there before. Why do you want something else? Why would you want to foist the responsibility of the expenditure plan onto a council that has yet to be named? If you're sincere about actually building this monument for the people of Canada, for all Canadians, all 32 million, then why would you take everybody through this exercise where you have to get a council that's outside of the parameters of government, a council from one specific community, not all Canadians, and say that we're going to let them do it because it's theirs, it's not ours?

Mr. Chairman, this amendment goes to the heart of the whole bill. It isn't just theirs; it's all of ours. And that's why this amendment can't be accepted. It isn't for the Jewish community. It isn't for that council. It's for all Canadians, and all Canadians deserve proprietorship of this. The Government of Canada can't leave this to the vagaries of the economy and the ability of whatever the council does.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Monsieur Laframboise on a point of order.

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

Mr. Chair, Mr. Volpe has already told us three times that it belongs to everyone. He is being redundant. I would like him to tell us something new. I do want to hear what he has to say, but I would like him to move on, not belabour the same point.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

I would have to agree that we are starting to get repetitious. As I mentioned earlier, I do have other members who wish to speak on the bill.

But I would ask, Mr. Volpe, if you have any more comments--new--then please proceed.

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

Well, okay, then let me put on the record the following, Mr. Chairman, because a new word has been introduced. I hadn't had it as part of my thesaurus collection. It's the word “redundant”. But it was used en français. What it meant was that we're beginning to see the word used often enough that it's beginning to seep in, it's beginning to be integrated, and therefore it's no longer needed.

This is the reason that this particular amendment has been reintroduced. It's exactly the same vocabulary in exactly the same order, both

In both French and English, it is the same thing. If the amendment is the same and we allow the same thing, we can give it consideration that would lead to the same answers. That is obvious!

It's evident that there's no redundancy. If there is no redundancy in the chicanery associated with bringing back an amendment that the government already withdrew because they knew it was wrong, then surely to reflect on the reasons that this xeroxed copy of an amendment would not be eliciting members' reflections--

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Monsieur Laframboise on a point of order.

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

Mr. Volpe, that is the third time you have said this amendment does not add anything new. You are not going to be able to do miracles. You are saying the same thing over and over again. It is sad to say, but the chair is going to have to tell you that you have nothing new to bring to the debate. Be creative, so we can appreciate what you have to say. Otherwise, you are just boring us.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

I would agree that it is a point of order.

Mr. Volpe, I don't want to have to use the authority of the chair, but if we continue to hear repetition.... I do have people on a list who do want to speak as well, so if you would....

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

I don't want to consume all the time of the committee, but having been around here a while, Monsieur Laframboise is right, I can identify when something is sad.

The current situation is unfortunate. What is sad is that the government is trying, through constant argument, to introduce something that could never be accepted with an open mind. Repetition becomes repetitious.

Mr. Chairman, repetition is repetition when it is a repetition of somebody else's words. I haven't used anybody else's words. I was reflecting on the word “redundant” that came by in French with respect to what it means when we're talking about financial expenditures—

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Jean on a point of order.

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

I want to mention to Mr. Volpe that he's not relevant and lunch is great.

Maybe he could take 30 seconds to grab a bite, come back, and continue his persuasive argument. But I would prefer that he kept it to relevance on the amendment.

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

I'm not sure whether that means he's asking that we break for lunch.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

We're not breaking for lunch, but I will have to advise you, Mr. Volpe, that I will be moving on to the next speaker very quickly, so I would ask that you conclude your remarks.

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

I will conclude my remarks if you give me the few seconds required.

Let me repeat for everybody present. Whether it's the Jewish community or the entire Canadian public—and I prefer to talk about the entire Canadian public—the Canadian public wants the full loaf associated with what we had prior to the government introducing amendments. It is not a time to give anybody half a loaf, a slice, or a crumb, and then to say they have the full loaf.

This is wrong. This amendment doesn't deserve to go anywhere.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Bevington.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

As I read the original bill that I voted on and that passed, the minister will oversee the planning and design of the monument. That means the minister will ensure that the design and plan for the monument are put in place. Then he will allocate the public land for the monument. Then the council will spearhead a fundraising campaign to raise the money for the monument the minister has decided is appropriate, the level of expenditure that is appropriate, and that is the way this bill is laid out. After that, the maintenance is going to be handled by the National Capital Commission.

How is this motion we're facing not completely different? What it's doing is asking the council to be engaged in the entire process. The council will raise the money to cover it all. To that extent, I think it's putting a lot of weight on the council and it's taking weight off the minister.

I don't have a problem with the campaign supporting the cost of planning and design, working with the minister, as this bill outlines “in cooperation with the Council, shall oversee the planning and design of the Monument”. I would like to see something that would allow the minister to make the decision about the design of the monument and the council then be engaged in raising the money to construct it, just as the bill is laid out.

I find this amendment casts too much weight onto the council. It could lead to a situation whereby a council was, through its fundraising efforts, not able to raise enough money to do the project properly. I see that happening. I see that we might end up with an inferior monument this way because of the vagaries of fundraising for the particular monument, or we end up with a monument that would be inappropriate through the process that went ahead. I'm concerned about that.

I would like to see an amendment that could change the word “cover” to “support”, so the operative word “cover”, which as I understand it means to take on all the costs—cover the costs—becomes the word “support”.

Mr. Chairman, can I put forward an amendment in this fashion, or do I need the consent of the committee?

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

It can be presented as a subamendment that becomes votable.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Okay. Well, I put forward that subamendment, that we change the word “cover” to “support”. That would allow me to carry forward with the motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

We now have on the floor a subamendment from Mr. Bevington that would change the word in the amendment from “cover” to “support”. So it would read:

campaign to support the cost of planning, designing, constructing, installing and maintaining the Monument, and any other costs incurred by the Council.

Mr. Jean.

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

On this subamendment, it's not a bad idea in some respects. In speaking with Monsieur Laframboise, he actually had a proposal, I understand, in relation to the next clause that would deal in part with Mr. Bevington's issue. It would allow the government not to be precluded from actually contributing to the museum.

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

I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Volpe on a point of order.

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

We don't have another clause on that. We were discussing another clause. We're only discussing this one, so I'm wondering whether we could just stay relevant.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Monsieur Laframboise.

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

I would like to suggest to Mr. Bevington and the committee that we discuss the amendment to clause 8 that I introduced before we discuss the subamendment. I think then we would understand each other. We could do that, if Mr. Bevington agrees.