Transport Committee on June 3rd, 2010

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

Mr. Chair, this clause 7 has nothing to do with government responsibility. I would like Mr. Volpe to concentrate on the clause and the amendment that have been brought before us. Again, he has brought up the fact that the government has $254 billion, and all that.

He has other colleagues. I am sure that his Liberal colleagues would like to join in this filibuster too. If he has nothing else to say, can't he just yield the floor to someone else, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

I would have to suggest, Mr. Volpe, that it is becoming repetitive, and I respect the point of order. So if you want to continue, I would ask that you stay relevant to the amendment being proposed.

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

I was trying to do exactly that, Mr. Chairman. I thank my colleagues for having care for my own health, but when I'm clearing my throat, it's okay, don't worry.

This particular amendment really begins to address the other issue that's very relevant to all of us, and that is where we think the responsibility for the decisions needs to be vested. Whether they're going to be delegated off to a council, a group of people, or whether the minister of the crown is still going to be answerable to the people of Canada—because this is an expression of the people of Canada's interest—we see that they are subverting their own understanding of what the responsibility of a minister might be.

But I'm going to cede to the entreaties of colleagues opposite who think perhaps I'm speaking too energetically to this particular issue. I know that my colleague from Mississauga—Streetsville wants to continue on this theme, and in deference to her, I will cede the floor.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mrs. Crombie.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I mentioned earlier how all the people of Canada want to honour the memory of the victims of the Holocaust and how my own grandfather served in World War II and was a prisoner of war who served in a labour camp for five years. So it's as important to me as I know it is to all Canadians. That means they all want to know that they're taking part and sharing in the responsibility and obligations that go with honouring these victims.

So I ask myself, what's behind these amendments? What's behind amendment 6.1? What's really going on here? Is there not some nefarious purpose? I wouldn't go that far, because clearly we wouldn't accuse the government of having a nefarious agenda. So what is going on?

You know they had unanimous support in the House of Commons. All parties rallied behind this private member's bill, because it was the right thing to do, it was the moral thing to do, it was the ethical thing to do. They sent it to committee for further study so we could analyze it clause by clause. Of course, this committee stamped it.

What's happened here at the 11th hour—well, not even at the 11th hour, but a little less than that—is that government members have presented amendments in a very underhanded way. It showed their contempt for the process, because it's a bait and switch. That's what's happened.

It is not the first time we have witnessed this government's contempt for the process, its contempt for Parliament. Amendment 6.1 speaks to its further contempt. They have ignored the supremacy of Parliament on a number of occasions. We can look at the issue of the Afghan detainees and the production of non-redacted documents. The same thing happened when we sat in the public accounts committee, where the government refused to produce non-redacted documents on the Afghan detainees—

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Monsieur Laframboise, on a point of order.

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

I am not sure why the Afghan detainees matter has come up in this discussion. I am happy to listen to our colleague, but it would be better if she could stick to the amendment that we are considering.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you, Monsieur Laframboise.

I would have to ask, Mrs. Crombie, that you be relevant to the clause, please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and to my colleague, Mr. Laframboise.

I was trying to elicit yet another example besides amendment 6.1 of how this government has shown contempt for the process, as it has in other instances.

Yesterday, we saw another example in the government operations committee, where witnesses wouldn't appear, even though they had been subpoenaed to appear—

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mrs. Crombie, I'll have to ask you to be relevant to the clause, please.

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

All right.

So what is going on here with these amendments? It appears, once again, that the government has ignored the intent of Parliament to construct a monument to honour the victims of the Holocaust.

So what do they want to do? They want to provide the appearance of erecting a monument but not take any of the responsibilities, by not assuming any of the costs of the planning, designing, construction and installation, and then the maintenance of the monument. No, they want to wash their hands of all of that and impose a tax on Canadians. In fact, it's almost double-dipping, because Canadians have set aside money for this, moneys that the minister agreed had been allocated and he supported. No, they want to turn over this responsibility for the construction, maintenance, and planning of a monument to a third party, to a council—

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Jean, on a point of order.

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

Mr. Chair, I have been so persuaded by Mr. Volpe and Mrs. Crombie that I would like to withdraw government amendment 6.1.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

That would require unanimous consent.

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

I would so ask for it. If Mr. Volpe is not satisfied with 6.1, and Mr. Bevington and Monsieur Laframboise, then let's withdraw it. I would ask for unanimous consent to do so.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Volpe.

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

I'm glad the government is being persuaded to address the basic principles of the bill as amended so far. I know that you can't undo what you've already done, but amendment G-6.1 essentially attempts to replace subclause 7(2), which we voted on.

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

I'm seeking unanimous consent. The point of order is just simply whether you agree, Mr. Volpe, that I withdraw the amendment that you want to filibuster, or do you not agree? Because if you don't agree, then continue with your filibuster. You don't like the amendment we put forward, so if you don't like it, agree to allow us to withdraw it.

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

I can understand that you're frustrated--

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

I'm not frustrated, but Mrs. Crombie had the floor, and this is in relation to a point of order--

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

She did have the floor, but you've addressed a question to me, so I'm trying to answer.

Debate is not necessarily filibuster. What we're trying to do is do what we are mandated to do, and that is to deliberate on clause-by-clause. That's not filibustering, and I resent the fact that somebody's attributing a different motive to it.

I think what we might do is just simply move on.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

We're on a point of order of Mr. Jean, who suggested that amendment G-6.1 be withdrawn.

Monsieur Laframboise.

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

We agree.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Dhaliwal, did you have a comment?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to support what Mr. Jean brought forward.