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
Joe Volpe Liberal Eglinton—Lawrence, ON
I think now is the appropriate time for you to make a declaration on whether this amendment is receivable and in order.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
Yes, and that's what I am going to do.
The amendment is beyond the scope of the bill. But again, as we have throughout the entire process, it is the will of the committee that makes that decision; I just present the advice.
Mr. Volpe.
Liberal
Joe Volpe Liberal Eglinton—Lawrence, ON
Mr. Chairman, I thought that might be the decision, and I'm hoping that some other people will--
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
I'm challenging your ruling, Mr. Chair. With respect, we've had challenges overturned both ways, but in this particular case, I challenge your ruling with respect to that.
Conservative
Conservative
Liberal
Joe Volpe Liberal Eglinton—Lawrence, ON
Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. I was in the middle of my own point when you were reminded that there might be a challenge. I think it's important for the chair and the committee to hear what our point would have been.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
The advice I'm given is that a challenge to the chair cannot be made on a point of order; it's made when you have the floor.
So Mr. Volpe had the floor.
Liberal
Joe Volpe Liberal Eglinton—Lawrence, ON
[Inaudible--Editor]...I appreciate the support of all my colleagues. We're going to try to get through this in a rational fashion.
Mr. Chairman and colleagues, one of the principles in the House and in committee is that we cannot do by the back door what will not be permitted through the front door. We've seen Speakers' decisions in the House repeat that basic principle over and over again.
What the committee has done with the amendments that it has presented over the course of the debate on this bill has established the principle that the government shall provide the land, i.e. the location in the national capital region, and the funds for the erection of a monument on that terrain and for the maintenance, as is consistent with everything else the National Capital Commission has done.
I had occasion to present to the minister an indication of various monuments that had already been erected and had already been covered by that basic principle. That was the intent of the legislation before the government tried to change it. We've re-established that principle. The government amendment—this one, G-6.1—and any others you mention are not receivable. They are not receivable because the government is now going into what one can identify as a user fee approach to erecting a monument. It says the council must go out there and raise the funds, not just in Canada but everywhere else. What that means is the Government of Canada doesn't have the money to do this, but anybody who's interested in this can go out and raise the money. Imagine that, Mr. Chairman and colleagues.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
Mr. Chair, I appreciate the member's persuasion on this issue, but I don't know if he's aware that we do have a letter here from the Canadian Jewish Congress, and I would like to read that into the record on the point of order, Mr. Chair, very quickly. It says:
I wish to acknowledge that Canadian Jewish Congress supports Bill C-442, An Act to establish a National Holocaust Monument, with the government's amendments.
That's quotable, Mr. Chair. I'll go on:
This is a very important initiative for all Canadians and we appreciate the commitment of Parliamentarians to see it to fruition.
They are supporting this bill with the government amendments, Mr. Volpe. I hope you will listen to the Canadian Jewish Congress. I've got a copy of that letter for you if you don't have a copy today. I did provide it to you last night. I'm certain that although we have different theories on how to get there, we're both interested in going forward for the same thing. We're listening to the Canadian Jewish Congress and their members, and that's what we'd like to do.
I don't know if I can table that letter, Mr. Chair.
Conservative
Liberal
Joe Volpe Liberal Eglinton—Lawrence, ON
My colleagues from the Bloc will accept it and I will accept it. There's not a problem. I read the letter—he's interrupted my point of order, but that's okay—but for a point of clarification, what it does say is “with the government's amendments”. We got these amendments last night at 7 o'clock, or whenever it was. I had a copy of this letter at 6 o'clock. I'm wondering whether there has been a breach of privilege of members of Parliament to consider amendments that have already been shared with other people.
At any rate, it doesn't say which amendments. It just says “government's amendments”. I don't know whether those amendments were the ones that had already been ruled out of order or the ones that are now being currently ruled out of order.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
I must interrupt the member. These amendments are exactly the same in substance as the first amendments.
Liberal
Joe Volpe Liberal Eglinton—Lawrence, ON
And they've already been turned down by the committee.
Mr. Jean, thank you for clarifying that. It's important that you did that, and I thank you for doing that.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
If I may, we have a point of order that's been raised. A document has been tabled. Are you speaking to his point of order?
Liberal
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
Then I actually have to go to Mr. Laframboise, who's still speaking on that point.
Liberal
Joe Volpe Liberal Eglinton—Lawrence, ON
Well, let me finish on that point and then we can come back to mine.