Transport Committee on June 3rd, 2010

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

Mr. Chair, first of all, I have to commend the role you play. As I mentioned to you many times, you are one of the chairs that I have a lot of respect for, because you are very fair. When they bring in the same amendment, exactly the same wording, with a different number on this amendment, it shows how cheap the politics are that the Conservatives are playing. If you want to go there, that's there.

Mr. Chair, I supported Mr. Jean's recommendation to withdraw this amendment, in the way that he was honest, in the way that he was up front with us. When we see the same amendment coming in and challenging your chairmanship, I feel he's betraying my trust. Next time I'll have to be very careful when he says this type of thing.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you.

Monsieur Laframboise.

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

Mr. Chair, if filibustering is a valid strategy, then withdrawing an amendment in order to bring in another one is a valid strategy too.

If the Liberals had called the question earlier, it would all be settled and we would not still be talking about it. The parliamentary secretary has the right to make an amendment. He has the right to do so. We can tear our hair out if we like, but it is still a strategy. I do not support the Liberal strategy of filibustering any more than I support the parliamentary secretary's strategy of making a new amendment.

But we still have the same problem. We have a legal problem. I told you that I did not agree with the law clerk's decision or his recommendations about all the amendments that were made. In my opinion, they were in order. But they decided that they were not.

The solution is to vote according to our conscience. The Speaker of the House of Commons will make the decision. Then, if they want a political debate—because I have no idea what the Liberals are after—they can just start their filibuster again. We have decided that we will go through to the end and that we will spend the night here if we have to. I have no problem with that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you.

It is not a point of order. Amendments can be reintroduced at any time throughout the clauses of a bill. The ruling of the chair was challenged and overturned; therefore, we are debating the new amendment that was presented by Mr. Jean.

I'll open the floor for debate.

Mr. Volpe.

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

I'm wondering whether the government wants to give us an elucidation of the merits of this amendment so we can understand why they propose it, unless they don't believe in it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Jean, any comment?

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

It's self-evident.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you.

The floor is open for debate.

Mr. Volpe.

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

Let me explain how self-evident it is then, Mr. Chairman, because I think we're going to be here quite a while.

With all due respect to Monsieur Laframboise about the tactics of Parliament that include, in his words, filibustering or the chicanery of withdrawing motions just to reinsert them because we've changed venue, I don't think either one of those two terms applies. On the one hand, one is open to a very legitimate debate to understand exactly what this amendment tries to do. On the other, we're talking about the tactics used by a political party to achieve through stealth and chicanery that which they are not legitimately able to achieve. It may be acceptable to the tactics of some in the process of political debate, and maybe partisan debate, but it certainly is debate, because that's the way we need to get things done in this Parliament. We can't do that, Mr. Chairman.

So I'm glad the government gave me the opportunity to speak on what is self-evident in this amendment. Presuming they have been missing on the way to Damascus with an illumination that says we do want to go through the self-evident truths inherent in this amendment, and that the Bloc, who supports them, is also interested in seeing what is self-evident in this, I will proceed. I'm hoping you have provided some nourishment for them, because it may take a while for me to find what is self-evident, both in the positive and in the negative.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Jean, on a point of order.

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

Relevance? Liberal filibuster.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

I would ask, Mr. Volpe, that you now start talking about the amendment, please.

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

Mr. Chairman, again, because the word “filibuster” is out there, I'll talk about chicanery. That's relevant.

This is exactly the same amendment the government felt it needed to withdraw. Why did it feel it needed to withdraw it a few short moments ago? I'll tell you why they felt they needed to withdraw it, Mr. Chairman and colleagues from all parties. They wanted to withdraw it because they realized it cannot be in order for them to introduce an amendment that would contravene everything the committee and the House of Commons has already approved. They just cannot do it. There's no authority there.

As Mr. Laframboise said a moment or two ago, perhaps we ought to leave this to the Speaker, because the Speaker will make a ruling. I think that would be a dereliction of duty, a dereliction of obligation, an irresponsible way to act. The Speaker of the House of Commons didn't ask this committee to deal with this so he could then deal with it himself. The Speaker of the House, on behalf of all members of Parliament, said there was a bill and asked us to go through it clause by clause.

Typically what happens is you deal with it on technical issues but respect the principle inherent in the decision of the House of Commons, and the decision, if I might be so bold, was to provide a full loaf to the decision. It wasn't to take it away. It wasn't to slice up that loaf and ask people to be satisfied, or to wedge the Canadian public and say a particular part of the community that should be interested in this is in favour of our slicing this up and providing less than the full loaf that the House of Commons said the Canadian public needed.

You cannot get the consent of the individual or the group--the community that may have been included as part of the larger issue of Canadian values--to take a diminished amount than what the Parliament of Canada, the House of Commons of Canada, had already accorded. That's one of the reasons why they felt they needed to withdraw the motion that has now been re-presented. They knew it had to be withdrawn.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Watson on a point of order.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

If I understand procedure properly, we are now debating a new motion--I think those are the words--a new amendment, as you mentioned, Mr. Chair. We're not debating an old one. He's speaking to an old amendment. Mr. Chair, I'd ask that you direct him to be relevant to the new amendment, as you had already decided.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

All right. Thank you.

Again I would ask Mr. Volpe to try to be as relevant as he can to the actual amendment, which deals with covering the cost, planning and design, and construction.

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

You're absolutely right, Mr. Chairman. It seems the words are similar. The government members want to talk about a new amendment using the same words in exactly the same order to produce the same intent. So you'll forgive me if addressing the words--

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Watson on a point of order.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

I haven't spoken about a new amendment, Mr. Chair. I believe you spoke about a new amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

It is presented as a new amendment from the floor, and those are my words.

Mr. Volpe, I'll ask you to continue.

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

It seems the government members agree with the suggestion that it might be a new amendment. I'm wondering whether, in their suggestion and their agreement with the suggestion, they are still prepared to go to a letter that was read but not tabled, which said that particular members of the community, of the Canadian Jewish Congress, might have been in agreement with amendments they had seen but now no longer exist. What does that mean? I think you'd have to consider this yourself, Mr. Chairman. Does that now mean that the support the Canadian Jewish Congress gave to the initial amendment has suddenly vanished?

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Watson on a point of order.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

I don't see any reference to a letter or the Canadian Jewish Congress in the new amendment before us. I'm not sure it's relevant, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Same point of order, Mr. Jean?

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

Yes. So far, we've had you ask the member to have relevance at least three or four times. The member himself has agreed each time that he should keep it relevant. If he continues this, Mr. Chair, is it possible that you can sanction this member?