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.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
On a point of order, relevance. We're dealing with clause-by-clause.
Liberal
Liberal
Sukh Dhaliwal Liberal Newton—North Delta, BC
I think it's very relevant. I'm saying that it's a coincidence that in June 1984, the holy shrine of Sikhs was attacked by the military, assaulted by the military, and thousands of innocent Sikhs were killed. In the same year, there was a pogrom in New Delhi where thousands of Sikhs—
Conservative
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
I'm certain that Mr. Dhaliwal is getting there very quickly, but I would ask him to address the amendment as quickly as he can.
Liberal
Sukh Dhaliwal Liberal Newton—North Delta, BC
—to go back to where I started, and then I'm coming back.
I was talking about 1984. In the same year, in November 1984, there were thousands of Sikh women—with due respect, Ms. Brown, you should be able to know this—who were raped and burned alive in Delhi in a pogrom organized by the state. Those people are also looking for something like this. When they were looking at this bill, they came to me to talk to me about whether they can have a similar bill. I—
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
On a point of order, relevance, Mr. Chair. I understand your leniency in relation to this, but I just don't see the relevance to “The Council shall spearhead a fundraising campaign”.
I would like to know what the relevance is, and I don't see it.
Conservative
Liberal
Sukh Dhaliwal Liberal Newton—North Delta, BC
If we give one community or five individuals control to build a public monument, then every other community will come forward and start building those monuments that are the dark chapters in their history. That would not be Canadian pride. I want to make it Canadian, so the minister should be 100% responsible for erecting, maintaining, planning, and building this monument, and for supporting the Jewish community.
Thank you, sir.
Liberal
Joe Volpe Liberal Eglinton—Lawrence, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
We now have in subclause 7(2), which has been amended by the government and amended in turn by Mr. Bevington, an amendment that says:
The Council should spearhead a fundraising campaign to support the cost of planning, designing, constructing, installing and maintaining the Monument, and any other costs incurred
Mr. Chairman, we are, on the Liberal side, reminding everybody that we've already accepted subclause 7(1), which says that the minister shall be responsible for building and maintaining this monument.
I think at this point in the game we might just simply ask you to call the question.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
We're good? Okay.
(Amendment as amended agreed to)
(Clause 7 as amended agreed to)
(On clause 8—Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada)
Mr. Jean, do you have an amendment?
Conservative
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
Yes, Mr. Chair. I just need a second here, but I'm getting there.
This amendment actually speaks for itself, Mr. Chair:
The Minister may delegate to the Council his or her responsibilities under paragraphs 6(a) and (c) and subsection 7(1).
The reason why the government believes this is the right thing to do is because we heard from the Jewish community that they want to participate in certain parts of this, and they want to oversee certain parts of it. That's in conjunction with the minister and in conjunction with, of course, the NCC in this case, because the land they will receive will be through the NCC. So that's why this is there.
We've listened to the community, Mr. Chair, and that's what they've asked for.
Liberal
Joe Volpe Liberal Eglinton—Lawrence, ON
Mr. Chairman, if we're going to follow the parliamentary secretary's admonitions to stay relevant.... So he's presented an amendment that he says comes as a result of listening to the Jewish community.
All along we've been talking about this being a bill--together with all of its amendments--reflecting the entire Canadian public's commitment to this. But this is the third time I've asked.... If in fact we are going to take the parliamentary secretary's words as truth, it behooves us all to have the representatives of the Jewish community to whom he has spoken—and who have allegedly supported everything he has done—come before the committee. There's nothing wrong with us listening to all of them to find out what it is they wanted.
Presumably everybody consulted with the community prior to the bill being presented in the House. So now we've got amendment after amendment being withdrawn and replaced by the same amendment, and we don't know what the Jewish community supports or not. Not that it matters, because this monument is a monument that is being supported by the public of Canada. Every single community and the public of Canada wants this monument, and they want the Government of Canada to assume the responsibility and the costs and the maintenance for this.
We've already voted this far. What purpose is there to continually harp on the fact that a particular segment of the Canadian public wants it? Is it to diminish their right to have a monument?
Conservative
Bloc
Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
Mr. Chair, if the Liberal Party wants to speak to the Jewish community.... We have been studying this issue since 9 o'clock this morning. I hope that the Liberal Party's research office took the time to speak with the community.
What I want to know first is whether the government's amendment is admissible because I would have a subamendment to propose.
Liberal
Bonnie Crombie Liberal Mississauga—Streetsville, ON
My point of order was more on the parliamentary secretary's statement that it's what the community wants.
I don't think it's fair that he alone knows what the community wants. I think they should have the opportunity to come in here, address us, and let the committee know specifically what they want. At that time we can discuss a letter that was almost tabled this morning, to find out if they had all the facts before this letter was tabled.
The Liberal Party is the champion of the Jewish community, because we're the only ones here trying to preserve the original intent of this bill. It is what all Canadians wanted, what Parliament wanted, and I'm sure what the Jewish community wanted. We want to preserve what they were promised. So let's hear from them. Why not bring them in?
