EVIDENCE

Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities NUMBER 021 3rd SESSION 40th PARLIAMENT Thursday, June 3, 2010 Le jeudi 3 juin 2010 Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities CANADA [Recorded by Electronic Apparatus] EVIDENCE June 3, 2010 Committee Edited Evidence * Table of Contents * Number 021 (Official Version) Official Report * Table of Contents * Number 021 (Official Version) Témoignages * Table des matières * Numéro 021 (Version officielle) 21 03 06 2010 2010/06/03 09:15:00 House of Commons Comité permanent des transports, de l'infrastructure et des collectivités Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities TRAN Chair Mr.

Merv Tweed 40 3

(0915) [ English ] The Chair (Mr. Merv Tweed (Brandon—Souris, CPC)) : Thank you, and good morning, everyone. Welcome to the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, meeting 21. Orders of the day are pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, March 3, 2010, Bill C-442, National Holocaust Monument Act . When we last left committee, we had dealt with the first Liberal amendment on clause 7, and we are now entertaining amendment LIB-3 on clause 7. Mr. Jean. Mr.

Brian Jean (Fort McMurray—Athabasca, CPC) : I'm not sure if everybody has received a copy of the latest amendments from the government, but I think they have, and I would like to table those at this time, just to make sure they're all in order and that we can deal with them as we come up to the clause. The Chair : Okay. Mrs. Crombie. Mrs. Bonnie Crombie (Mississauga—Streetsville, Lib.) : I haven't received any amendments. The Chair : That's good then. That was my next question. Mrs. Bonnie Crombie : I haven't received any amendments. I don't know what you're referring to. The Chair : Okay.

Then we have them to distribute to you. Mrs. Bonnie Crombie : A point of order. Are we going to entertain amendments that some of us haven't received and haven't reviewed? The Chair : We can entertain amendments in any fashion, whether they are presented previously or at the table during the discussion, Mrs. Crombie. Mrs. Bonnie Crombie : Is there not a procedure for tabling amendments the way you have to table a motion, with 48 hours' notice at a minimum? The Chair : No. When we're doing amendments, they can actually be drafted as we're having dialogue. They can happen instantaneously.

So does everyone have a copy now, just to be sure? I think everyone has the information in front of them now. So we will now move to clause 7, the Liberal amendment 3. (On clause 7— Public land and maintenance of Monument ) Mr. Volpe. Hon. Joseph Volpe (Eglinton—Lawrence, Lib.) : Mr. Chairman, might I be permitted a moment to review everything? [ Translation ] This is for all the members who were not present last time. (0920) [ English ] We left off on clause 7.

Our Liberal amendment, amendment L-2, which you will find on page 8.1 of our documentation, says that Bill C-442, in clause 7, be amended by replacing lines 8 to 10 on page 3 with the following: 7. The Minister shall be responsible for the construction and maintenance of the Monument. That particular amendment passed. Then, because some members noted that we hadn't dealt with subclause 7(2) as we were voting for clause 7 as amended, some discussion began to circulate regarding the fundraising campaign to cover the cost of the construction of the monument.

It was our contention then that all that happened, as far as we were concerned, was that when we were preparing our amendment, we had inadvertently eliminated the portion that would have said.... Instead of lines 8 to 10, it should have been lines 8 to 13. Accepting clause 7, i.e. amendment L-2, would have made that subclause redundant. What we've done to remedy that confusion is introduce our amendment L-3, which states that we delete lines 11 to 13 on page 3.

It was, at the time, the suggestion of the Bloc member present that we could handle it in one of two ways: either make clause 8 as it exists part of clause 7 or just go on to clause 8 afterwards and move along. It is still our contention that what we wanted, and what we thought was the intent of the mover of this bill, is for the Government of Canada to establish a location in the National Capital Commission for a national Holocaust memorial on behalf of all Canadians.

I stress the words “all Canadians”; so that all Canadians would have an opportunity to commemorate the tragedy visited upon so many victims of the evil that was perpetrated by one ideological faction in the world. And we wanted to do that. All of us accepted the idea that it would be Canadians and their government recognizing the importance of a Holocaust memorial, not a special group, not a particular group, and not anywhere else in the country except in the national capital region to indicate the commitment of the Canadian public to this.

So we had accepted that principle through all the clauses leading up to clause 7. We feel that the elimination of subclause 7(2) of clause 7 is consistent with everything else the committee has accepted so far. Moreover, nothing ever precludes a fundraising campaign by interested citizens from taking place--nothing. But it doesn't have to be prescribed in law.

So if a council were not to come forward, and if a council were not to be a part of the spearheading of a fundraising campaign, and God forbid, if that fundraising campaign weren't able to bring forward sufficient funds to erect such a monument in the national capital region, what would then happen? It was our contention that we shouldn't leave that to the vagaries of chance, when we already have at our disposal the mechanisms necessary for erecting such a monument. We have a bill that was unanimously accepted by the House.

And we have, as we saw last week in a discussion of the estimates, the funds already available in the national capital region to be able to erect such a monument, to eliminate all of the potential mitigating vagaries of such a fundraising campaign, or in fact, if the government wanted to back away from something, it need not happen.

(0925) So significant is the erection of this monument that we need not put it at the chance of a council that may or may not come up with the funds in the prescribed period of time. The minister's answer to my question about whether the government was prepared to provide royal recommendation, i.e., to pay for it, was yes, no doubt. So cost is no longer an issue. Implication on the finances of the government is no longer an issue. The legislative authority to act is already vested in the National Capital Commission, which is responsible to the minister we interviewed on the estimates a few days ago. Mr.

Chairman, the last time we went through a whole series of scenarios regarding amendments, etc., it took us all by surprise on this side of the House that the government would introduce an amendment to every single clause in the bill that their backbencher presented and that all opposition parties supported. For the government to come forward with amendments that would completely gut the bill, completely change the intention of the bill, and try to tactically buy into some other agenda is just absolutely unacceptable to us. We regret the fact that for whatever reason we did not clarify subclause 7(2).

We thought we did, and this amendment is there to ensure there is no confusion about the way the committee had already accepted all the amendments up to and including subclause 7(1). I'm hoping that all members around the table will accept the third Liberal amendment, which reinforces the fact that the government must allocate the land and provide the funds for erecting and maintaining this monument.

This monument will be a Canadian public testament to the horrors of the Holocaust and to the suffering of those who survived and those who didn't, and also a testament to mankind's need to stay ever vigilant against evils that find their way into government and perpetuate and perpetrate genocidal and other types of atrocities. Mr. Chairman, I know all members around the table agree with that. That's why I'm sure everybody will support the Liberal amendment to clarify clause 7, subclauses (1) and (2) by eliminating subclause (2) of clause 7. Thank you. The Chair : Mr. Jean, on a point of order. Mr.

Brian Jean : Just a point of clarification, not a point of order. The first government amendment, G-6.1, obviously deals with that clause as well. I just wanted to point that out, that it is in the same....

The Chair : I'll rule on that, yes. For the information of all members, the LIB-3 amendment is admissible, but if it is accepted and adopted, then G-6.1, G-8.1, and a

section of G-10 wouldn't be allowed to be moved. Mr. Jean. Mr. Brian Jean : Yes, Mr. Chair. I think we've heard from Mr. Volpe, and certainly I would suggest that all of us at this table are very interested in making sure this happens. It's just how we get there, but certainly I think our proposal in relation to this particular amendment.... Do you want me to deal with it now or are we going to deal with...? The Chair : We'll deal with the LIB-3 amendment first. Mr. Brian Jean : All right. I have nothing further to say. Thank you, Mr. Chair. The Chair : Okay. Any other comment? Mr. Volpe. Hon.

Joseph Volpe : Just a point of clarification on what you said, Mr. Chairman, and that is if members around the table accept our amendment to subclause 7(2), all the others, G-6.1, G-7.1, and G-8.1 will not be receivable. I'm wondering whether it would be better, before you take the vote on the acceptance or not of our amendment, that you rule on whether these proposed amendments by the government are receivable anyway. I think you might want to do that, because members of the government side will probably condition their vote on our amendment on the basis of whether they can propose another amendment.

You haven't entertained a discussion on these yet, but I think you need to be able to clarify for us whether these amendments are receivable and in order, given all the decisions the committee has already made on the bill.

(0930) The Chair : Before I recognize Mr. Watson on a point of order, to make sure the record is clear, if Liberal-3 is adopted, G-6.1, G-8.1, and a

section of G-10.... You had included G-7.1 and it's not.... It wouldn't be fair for me to rule on an amendment that hasn't been presented. We are dealing with LIB-3, and that's what I want the committee to focus on. Mr. Watson, on the point of order. Mr. Jeff Watson (Essex, CPC) : You actually corrected it, Mr. Chair. I thought Mr. Volpe had said the wrong potential amendments would be affected, but you did clarify that it's G-6.1, G-8.1, and part of G-10. The Chair : Thank you. Is there any other comment? (Amendment negatived) The Chair: We will now move to government amendment 6.1. Mr. Jean. Mr.

Brian Jean : Yes, Mr. Chair. This follows through with the government's commitment in relation to the planning, designing, construction, installing, and maintaining the monument, and other costs incurred, that Canadians can actually participate in this. The council itself will spearhead a fundraising campaign to cover these costs, and all Canadians and other people throughout the world can participate in this monument. The Chair : Mr. Volpe, on a point of order. Hon. Joseph Volpe : I think now is the appropriate time for you to make a declaration on whether this amendment is receivable and in order.

The Chair : Thank you. Hon. Joseph Volpe : Before I make a comment on it. The Chair : 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. Hon. Joseph Volpe : Mr. Chairman, I thought that might be the decision, and I'm hoping that some other people will-- Mr. Brian Jean : A point of order. An hon. member: Mr. Volpe is on a point of order.

The Chair : No, he's on the-- Mr. Brian Jean : 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. The Chair : The ruling of the chair has been challenged. It is not debatable. An hon. member: He asked for a point of order. The Chair: He challenged my ruling, so that's where I have to go on that. Hon. Joseph Volpe : 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. The Chair : 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. Hon. Joseph Volpe : [ 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.

(0935) The Chair : Mr. Jean, on a point of order. Mr. Brian Jean : 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. The Chair : It can be tabled. Is there any comment on the point of order? Hon. Joseph Volpe : 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. Mr. Brian Jean : I must interrupt the member. These amendments are exactly the same in substance as the first amendments. Hon. Joseph Volpe : 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. The Chair : 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?

(0940) Hon. Joseph Volpe : No, I'm accepting it, so I can finish with my own point. The Chair : Then I actually have to go to Mr. Laframboise, who's still speaking on that point. Hon. Joseph Volpe : Well, let me finish on that point and then we can come back to mine. The Chair : But you weren't on the floor on a point of order; you were addressing the amendment. That's the place where we were, on amendment G-6.1. Hon. Joseph Volpe : But you asked whether it was acceptable to table this. The Chair : Right. Hon.

Joseph Volpe : And I just wanted to clarify that I actually did speak with the president of the Canadian Jewish Congress, who was unaware that the letter had gone out. He was completely unaware. I spoke then to the individual who's responsible for this file, who thought, quite frankly, that the letter could be issued on the basis of a conversation that was supposed to resolve the issue—but it never took place. I'm wondering whether the parliamentary secretary wants to talk about breach of privilege or deception. The Chair : I'll recognize Monsieur Laframboise on the same point of order. [ Translation ] Mr.

Mario Laframboise (Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, BQ) : Still on the point of order, Mr. Chair, I cannot agree to the letter being tabled because it is in English only. But I can tell you that I have received correspondence from the community in French, including a proposed subamendment. So I can confirm that there have been contacts between the government and the community. The Liberals are just doing their job. [ English ] The Chair : Thank you, Mr. Laframboise, for that clarification. Mr. Volpe, we're back to you. We're discussing G-6.1, which has been tabled by Mr. Jean.

For clarification—and here I apologize to Mr. Volpe—when I have made a ruling, I can entertain points of order, but no discussion or debate on G-6.1. Because I've ruled it inadmissible, we either accept a challenge of the chair or accept my decision. So if you're on a point of order, we can allow that to continue, but there is no debate about G-6.1. It's a point of order to make a point. Hon. Joseph Volpe : Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I believe— The Chair : I'll interrupt you one more time. Mr. Jean, do you have a point of order? Mr. Brian Jean : It's not a point of order, Mr. Chair. Does he still have the floor?

The Chair : Yes, on a point of order of his. Hon. Joseph Volpe : As I understand it, until I finish on the point of order and you rule on the point of order, nobody can make a motion to challenge the chair. So we're not even on that yet. The Chair : We're on a point of order raised by you. Hon. Joseph Volpe : So we're still on a collegial, cooperative basis. Wonderful. My point of order is that I don't think any amendments and decisions by the chair can contravene the basic principle established in the House, that being that you cannot sneak in the back door what can't go through the front door.

What the front door represents is all of the decisions made by the committee leading up to and including the vote on 7.1. The votes up to and including 7.1 say that the Government of Canada is going to be responsible for finding the terrain, erecting the monument, and maintaining that monument, because that's the only way this is going to be a Canadian public monument. Any other monument is something erected by a very specific element of the Canadian citizenry, and that's not the intent of the legislation.

Any of these amendments that go against that basic principle, in other words, that try to sneak in the back door what has already been shut out of the front door, have to be ruled out of order. The Chair : Thank you, Mr. Volpe. Mr. Jean. Mr. Brian Jean : I challenge the chair. The Chair : Okay. The ruling of the chair has been challenged. I'll go to Bonnie. The Clerk of the Committee (Ms. Bonnie Charron) : [ Inaudible--Editor ]...that the decision of the chair be sustained. (Ruling of the chair overturned: nays 7; yeas 4)

(0945) The Chair : So the ruling of the chair has been overturned, and we will now debate G-6.1. Mr. Volpe, on a point of order.

Hon. Joseph Volpe : It's with great regret that I see, first of all, that we are yet again challenging the chair and that this time the challenge was sustained. I know that the Bloc refused to have a letter presented by the parliamentary secretary to be tabled. It is well within its rights to do that, for exactly the reasons it indicated. However, parts of the letter were read into the record for the purposes of influencing a decision. I just want the record to indicate that that letter was obtained under false pretences, and I— Mr. Brian Jean : I object, Mr. Chair. I certainly object. The Chair : Mr. Jean. Mr.

Brian Jean : That is a direct insult to me, Mr. Chair. I did not ask for that letter. That letter was provided to me. It was provided directly to me. An hon. member: Out of the blue? Mr. Brian Jean: The point is that the letter has been provided. The point is that the substance of the letter confirms that they support the government's amendments and this bill. To suggest that I obtained it under false pretenses is just simply wrong, and, quite frankly Mr. Volpe, it is insulting. I thought better of you, bluntly.

The Chair : Members, I'm going to go to Monsieur Laframboise on the same point of order. [ Translation ] Mr. Mario Laframboise : Mr. Chair, Mr. Volpe knows exactly how the Standing Orders work. The committee is master of its own proceedings. We have the right to overturn the chair's decision. If he does not agree with that, he can take it up with Speaker Milliken when the bill is referred back to the House. These are amendments proposed by the government that hopefully has done its job. We will see how things turn out. Meanwhile, I hope that we will clear the frustration from the room and move on.

We have the right to overturn the chair's decision. If Mr. Volpe is not happy with that, he can just use other procedures. [ English ] The Chair : I have two other people left to speak, Mr. Dhaliwal and then Mr. Bevington. Mr. Sukh Dhaliwal (Newton—North Delta, Lib.) : Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, I'm respectfully looking at this letter that is written by the Canadian Jewish Congress and tabled now, and I have to agree with Mr. Volpe. This is clearly a very vague letter, which does not explain which amendments it supports.

We do not have the full story to this letter, and this letter was not written in full discussion with members on this side, the Liberal side, as well. I would suggest that, with every respect...I think every Canadian, including myself and my children, would feel very proud to be part of erecting this monument for the Holocaust. This is a history, in fact, that we should all be sharing. Not only political people should be able to come in and say that's their duty. In fact, being Canadian, I would personally feel that every Canadian feels as proud. Those are my comments. Mr.

Colin Mayes (Okanagan—Shuswap, CPC) : I thought we had already determined that that letter was not admissible because it was not produced in French. Why are we discussing this letter? It doesn't exist. The Chair : Thank you. I'll go to Mr. Bevington for a comment. Mr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP) : Well, I've got a copy of the letter here, and it was given to me here, but whether it exists or not in terms of the committee, I'm not sure. If there are some questions about the support for the direction this bill is taking, perhaps we need to bring some more witnesses forward.

If that is the case and if there's some concern about how this is unfolding, I'd like to get to the bottom of it. We're spending a lot of time on this, I know. I have lots of other things I'd like to see the committee move forward on, but there is a basic element here. Is the government responsible for this memorial? Of course, as a Canadian citizen, I want the government to be responsible for the memorial because then it represents the feelings of all Canadians. My father was a war veteran and partook in the bombing of Germany to stop the war and the death of many people, to right wrongs.

Should I not ensure that the Government of Canada is fully responsible for this memorial to honour his actions in dealing with the Holocaust? If I asked him what I should do here, I would think he would tell me, yes, it has to be the Government of Canada that initiatives, approves, and puts the monument in place. So for me, this is an important issue, and I thought the private member's bill that is in front of us clearly says it. The parliamentary secretary asked me to review a document that he said had the considered opinion of a very important group dealing with the Holocaust issue.

I want to understand that what he gave me was correct and that it matches with their particular point of view. But when it comes to that larger issue of who is responsible for this memorial, I can't take any other position than the one I have.

(0950) The Chair : Thank you. Before we go any further, I have one more point of order to recognize. I do want to suggest that we are getting into debate around other issues. I will respectfully ask Mrs. Crombie to make her comments, and then I'll rule on the point of order. Hopefully we can proceed. Mrs. Crombie. Mrs. Bonnie Crombie : Mr. Chairman, there is no one more excited about the erection of this monument than I. My grandfather, too, was a prisoner of war in the Second World War and was held in a labour camp for five years.

So I was quite excited that we would take this initiative as a government, and as a whole, the taxpayers of Canada themselves would be part of this initiative. Now, portions of the letter that we're not discussing have already been tabled and read into the record, as a matter of fact. Clearly, there is some uncertainty with respect to the reference to the quote, “the government's amendments”, which are specifically very vague.

They don't refer to which government amendments, and we're not certain whether the third party involved, the CJC, is aware that those amendments fundamentally change the essence of the bill as it had been presented. Now I think we have no other course of action than to bring them forward and ask them to appear as witnesses to provide clarification as to whether they understand fully that these amendments, which they purport to support, fundamentally change the essence of the bill that had been initially tabled and that was supported by this committee.

Perhaps before we can move forward on a clause-by-clause basis, we need clarification from the organization on the letter, which hasn't been tabled and isn't official. If I could add one more point, Mr. Chairman, I find it offensive, to use the word of my colleague across the floor, that the government would share amendments with outside organizations, no matter how wonderful the organizations may be, without bringing them forward to their colleagues at this committee first.

That has to be immoral and probably wrong, but it is certainly offensive that they do that and that they tabled these amendments nine hours before we have to come to a decision on them, without giving us the respect to review them properly, to consider them, and to debate them as a caucus ourselves. That is disrespectful and quite offensive, and they should absolutely be out of order.

(0955) The Chair : Thank you. It's not a point of order. It is, in my mind, debate. We have tabled G-6.1. The decision of the committee is that we deal with G-6.1 and that's what I would ask that the debate open on. Mr. Volpe, do you have a point of order? Hon. Joseph Volpe : I think you're absolutely right, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Bevington raised the point, and Madam Crombie raised a similar point, namely, that when we discuss clause-by-clause we typically have the technical experts—usually from the department—here before us. We've been sidetracked from that because of a letter.

I used language that was pretty strong, and I don't mean to get into ad hominem attacks. I never do that. I want to retract the words that were offensive to my colleague, Mr. Jean, but I found it difficult to come up with any other language. I'm sorry for that. We have, as one of our observers, a representative from the Canadian Jewish Congress. This representative is responsible for the file, wanted to be consulted on this letter, and was probably consulted on what the conversation was about. Even though the letter was not accepted for tabling, the first paragraph was read into the record.

We can deal with it because it was read into the record in both English and French. I'm wondering, Mr. Chairman, whether you would call up Mr. Eric Vernon from the Canadian Jewish Congress. He can appear before us and answer any questions specific to these clauses. He's the only one who can determine whether the letter was solicited or offered voluntarily. He's the only one who can tell us whether it reflects the points that Mrs. Crombie, I, Mr. Bevington, and others have been trying to make. I'm wondering whether you would call Mr. Vernon to the table.

The Chair : Thank you for that advice, but we cannot entertain witnesses when an amendment is on the floor. We have to address the amendment, and then if the committee consents, we can bring any witness forward that we choose. But because G-6.1 has been brought forward, we have to address that amendment before we can move in any other direction. I would ask that we open the debate on G-6.1 and move forward. Mr. Volpe. Hon. Joseph Volpe : I come back to the principle that I repeated on many an occasion. I'd like to add another one, which builds on what Madam Crombie said a moment or two ago and was repeated by Mr.

Bevington. I think even Mr. Laframboise referred to it. That is that such a monument is important to the history of Canada. It's important to the people of Canada, and it should not be relegated to a particular group in Canada. It is not a monument for 100,000, 200,000 or 300,000 people. It is one that has the full commitment of all 32 million inhabitants of the country, and that's why it's important for this bill to reflect the interest not only of the Government of Canada but the entire Parliament of Canada, and indeed, Mr.

Chairman, the entire House of Commons—no exceptions—voted in favour of the bill with those principles in mind. The government has turned the tables on that process and is now talking about user fees for specific people who might be interested. Mr. Chairman, colleagues, I plead with you to think in terms of what that means. It means that all of us are going to be implicated in stepping back from the commitment by the entire public of Canada to erect a monument to commemorate the injustices done by evil around the world, and that specifically affects all of our values as Canadians—all Canadians.

I can't be a part of that. I'm not sure anybody else would want to be a part of it. I'm not sure the Canadian Jewish Congress would agree to that process, as much as they are excited about having such a monument erected. But such a monument erected according to the principles outlined by amendment G-6.1 by the government would mean that monument is specific to a small group in Canada, financed by a small group in Canada, by their own volition, by their own resources, irrespective of outreach by all other Canadians to share in the tragedy that befell them and affected all of us. We can't have that.

They won't have it. I'm sorry that you won't call them, because the rules don't allow it, to come before us during the discussion on this amendment. Perhaps we'll have to consider it on the next amendment. But, Mr. Chairman, I think I reflect the views of all colleagues, not just the government members, to stay true to the principle that we have accepted so far. This amendment rejects that principle. I'm not going to implicate or allocate a motive of false intent, malicious intent, or even oblivious intent. I just think it's wrong.

It's wrong to turn our backs on the principles that make this a worthwhile project that had all Canadians interested and involved and now are turning a portion of the population into a wedge. That's never been the intent of this legislation. It's not anything that my caucus colleagues on the Liberal Party could ever support. We couldn't support this amendment even if we wanted to comply with the government's desire to go out there and involve Canadians in a fundraising exercise, to get user fees, by any other language. The money is there. We saw the minister agree to it.

We saw the minister agree when he came before the committee last week and said that the royal recommendation is not a problem. Those are his quotes. We'll offer; the money is there. Finances are not an issue. The principle is an issue. This amendment not only erodes the principle, it destroys the principle, turns its back on the people who are most affected, and it turns its back on the values of the Canadian public that wants to be at one with all the people who are affected, because the Holocaust affects us all. I urge everybody to turn this amendment down.

(1000) The Chair : Monsieur Laframboise. [ Translation ] Mr. Mario Laframboise : Mr. Chair, it is funny, but I am in favour of amendment G-6.1, as I would be for amendment G-7.1 and the government amendments. Let me explain why. It is true that the law clerks have recommended that you do not accept these amendments. I would just like to challenge the position they have taken. The objective of the amendments is to make the bill better. We are coming up against the limits of a private member's bill. A bill like that has limits. We have already talked about them here.

When it tabled amendments G-6.1 and G-7.1, the government confirmed that the minister would remain responsible but would delegate that responsibility. Personally, I feel that that is allowed. That is why I said earlier that, if the Liberal Party is not happy, it could get the Speaker of the House involved and ask him to decide. With all due respect to the law clerks advising you, I feel that he would rule in favour of the decision that was just made to overturn your decision. I feel that the minister is going to issue a power of attorney. It is a kind of proxy.

He keeps the responsibility, but he is delegating part of his authority. When you delegate part of your authority, you always remain responsible. To me, this is a legal debate. I understand the Liberals. They have been trying to filibuster for a while. They can do that. They know very well that it is another way, another strategy, to get the original bill passed. If they can filibuster until June 11, it will be passed as is. We have to give the government amendments a chance. Personally, I am going to support them.

If there is ever an objection, if the Liberals and the NDP vote against, fine; the Speaker will decide. That is where the debate will be. As for the amendments, the government has the right to delegate its authority. The law clerks are against it doing so. So I feel the decision will have to be made by someone else, and that someone is the Speaker of the House. But I would prefer not to have a political debate about whether we will or will not have a monument. I want us to have a monument and those people to have the recognition they deserve.

If that is a problem legally, let us support these amendments on division if we want to, and the Speaker will decide. I have no problem with that. (1005) [ English ] The Chair : Mr. Volpe. Hon. Joseph Volpe : Mr. Chairman, I want to continue with this discussion, and I will, but first I think I'd like to move for adjournment until we can get witnesses to clarify some of these issues. The Chair : Mr. Volpe, are you asking that the meeting be adjourned or debate? Hon. Joseph Volpe : That the meeting be adjourned until we can call witnesses to address some of these issues.

The Chair : The call for the meeting to be adjourned is admissible, and it's open for debate. For clarification, the motion is acceptable and open for debate because it has been qualified with the comment that we receive further information from witnesses. It therefore becomes debatable, and then we'll vote on it. Mr. Volpe. Hon. Joseph Volpe : Mr. Chairman, all I want to do is to simply say, adjourn the meeting. I only wanted to give an indication as to why, but there's no need for me to add the why. I think everybody knows it, so I move to adjourn the meeting.

The Chair : Now there is no debate because it's a direct motion to adjourn. I will call the vote. Mr. Laframboise. [ Translation ] Mr. Mario Laframboise : Mr. Chair, I would like to make an amendment to the motion. I suggest that we adjourn for five minutes. If they want to have a discussion, I see no problem with us adjourning for five minutes and coming back. Otherwise, I will vote against. [ English ] The Chair : Are you acceptable to that? Hon. Joseph Volpe : I accept that there's no debate, no amendment. The Chair : Okay.

Regrettably, I can't accept that, so we will vote now on the motion to adjourn. (Motion negatived) The Chair: We're back to debate on G-6.1. Mr. Bevington. Mr. Dennis Bevington : Is a motion to adjourn for five minutes in order now? The Chair : It appears there is agreement to take a 10-minute recess. Mr. Jean. Mr. Brian Jean : I'm just curious. Once you've moved a clause in clause-by-clause and you have it in front of you and it's being debated, can you then move to adjourn? It's just very interesting. I've never seen it. The Chair : A motion to adjourn supersedes the amendment debate.

If we have agreement, we can take a 10-minute recess. We'll recess for 10 minutes. (1005)

(1020) The Chair : Thank you, and welcome back, everyone. The debate was taking place on government amendment 6.1. We were, I think, near the end of the debate. But if there's no one else, then I will— An hon. member: Mr. Volpe was still speaking-- The Chair: Mr. Volpe. Hon. Joseph Volpe : Mr. Chairman, this particular amendment by the government is attempting, as I said earlier on, to reverse some of the decisions that had already been made by the committee leading up to this particular clause.

All of this is predicated on the parliamentary secretary reading into the record part of a letter that was not accepted for tabling, for the usual procedural reasons--legitimate as they have always been--by other members of the committee. However, with respect to what was already read into the record, it would appear that a letter of endorsement was produced on the basis of a scenario depicted to the letter writer or to his colleagues responsible for the file that conveyed an impression that might have been, at the very least, incomplete.

On the basis of those conversations and the scenario being incomplete, we voted on accepting or not accepting to continue the debate. We are now here on G-6.1. I think it always bears repetition that the government is trying to do something through the back door that has already been shut at the front door. What the government is doing is it is essentially saying that anyone who wants to build a monument can go ahead and do it on their own.

What this amendment says is we'll establish a council, we'll use the appropriate legal model to ensure that it exists, we'll give it the articles that we give any other corporation, we'll let them--although the legislation doesn't say that--maybe establish themselves as a charitable organization, and we'll let those people go forward who have a direct tie to the Holocaust. We've already rejected that language. We already rejected that language because Canadians all have a direct tie. But the government doesn't think so.

The government thinks that it's only members of those families who have an immediate connection to someone who perished during the Holocaust. And in that thinking, Mr. Chairman, the government is saying that the Canadian public doesn't want to have anything to do with the monument. That analysis is wrong. The Canadian public does want to do this, but there are only so many ways the Canadian public can express itself in favour of a monument that commemorates the tragic genocidal actions committed in our generation.

So the government comes back and it says what they're going to do is establish this council; they're going to conduct a fundraising campaign. They'll cover the cost of planning, they'll cover the cost of designing, they'll cover the cost of construction, they'll cover the cost of installing and maintaining the monument, and they'll cover any of the costs the council establishes.

(1025) Well, you know, Mr. Chairman and colleagues, everybody else in the country is asking why we need the legislation for us to establish such a council in the first place. We don't need permission to do that in a free and open country like Canada. If we have the money, we'll do that. We'll do it ourselves. We can buy property here through the National Capital Commission. We can do it on our own. We don't need the permission of the Government of Canada. We don't need the consent of this committee to send out a real estate agent to locate the land for us.

We might actually come up with a better location than the one you want to give us. We don't need you to conduct a nationwide contest from an architectural design point of view. We don't need you to give us the money. We just want to do it on our own. Well, you know what? We can. Every citizen can. Every group of citizens can. So we're not talking about the financing of a concept. We're not talking about permitting a concept to be generated. We're not talking about the abilities of any community to generate the resources necessary to realize this project.

There is in fact already a group out there that says it has this project in mind and it thinks it's long overdue and it is already generating funds. It wants to get it done. People have already done that. Why do we need a government amendment to say they have our benediction, they have our approval, they have our consent? Give us a break. In a democratic environment where the citizen prevails, we don't need the Government of Canada to do that. But here's what we need the Government of Canada to do.

We need the Government of Canada to speak for all Canadians—every single one of the 32 million who have subscribed to the census and have identified themselves as legitimate inhabitants in this place. We need the Government of Canada to collectively speak on behalf of those 32 million and to say collectively that it is our will to ensure that such a monument be planned, designed, constructed, installed, and maintained at our expense—because it is our monument, because it is an expression of our experience, because it is a reflection of all the values that make Canada what Canada is. Do you want to help?

You're quite welcome. But the Government of Canada has the resources, the generative resources of talent, ingenuity, even will, and finances. To be able to marshal together all of those elements that collectively give a stamp of Canada on the project, that's what every community would need. They don't need the Government of Canada for anything else. They don't, and the committee has already said, all along, leading up to this amendment, that it doesn't need anything other than an expression of the Government of Canada's will to do this. But do you know what, Mr. Chairman and colleagues?

Members of Parliament have already done that. They've done the heavy lifting for the Government of Canada. They've already done all the preparatory work for the Government of Canada. They've done it in the House of Commons, unanimously. They expressed support for a bill presented by a backbench member of Parliament, seconded by an opposition member of Parliament, and everyone agreed that the principle should be the one we've enunciated--everyone. The bill came before this committee, and to everyone's surprise, the government presented an amendment for every single clause in the bill.

Just reflect on that, colleagues. Every single clause in the bill was pulled back by the Government of Canada.

(1030) The Government of Canada said no, we could not have the expression of the public's desire to support this concept. The Government of Canada said to that community, which is already busily working away to build a monument in the national capital region, to ensure that the Canadian public lends its support to that initiative. Let it stand out there like a beacon, worldwide, and say the people of Canada have done this--not the Government of Canada, the people of Canada.

The Parliament of Canada--members of Parliament from every nook and cranny in Canada, from every political stripe, from every religious background, members of Parliament elected in rural Canada, in maritime Canada, in urban Canada, in the north, members of Parliament as remote from the experience of the Holocaust as you can get, collectively joined in and said, “We want our voice stamped on that monument.” There's only one way for us to do it, and that's to say that the people of Canada--the Government of Canada--want to finance, plan, design, build, and maintain this monument. It's a reflection of our will.

It's a reflection of our design. It's an expression of our commitment to fellow man. That's a laudable thing to do. But the government said “uh-uh”. What's going to trump all of this is money. And even though the House of Commons agreed with us wholeheartedly, completely, thoroughly, unanimously, the government, upon reflection, said it doesn't want to do this anymore, that money is an issue. What money? The Government of Canada's annual budget is something like $255 billion. The Government of Canada has that much money at its disposal on an annual basis--$255 billion.

I don't know how much this monument would cost. I dare say it probably won't even put a dent in that $255 billion budget. So really, the issue of money can't be it. Well, maybe it's because we're in a time of constraint. Now we have to reduce the deficit, we have to reduce the debt. We have to balance off all of the woes that have afflicted our finances. So the first casualty will be this monument. Well, is money that significant?

To judge by the statements of the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities just the other day, when he appeared before a committee, money is not the issue, and the reason for that is that the budget gave even more money to the National Capital Commission for the conduct of its business, for the management of its real estate assets, and for its operations. The Government of Canada, thanks to votes in the House, was able to transfer to the National Capital Commission additional millions of dollars--additional--for projects just like this one. In fact, they didn't even need this legislation.

I pointed out in a letter to the minister that the NCC already possesses the authority to establish a monument without parliamentary approvals. Indeed, the NCC currently is responsible for, count them, not one, not two, not three, not four or five, but 16 monuments, including the Hungarian monument, the Canadian tribute to human rights, the monument to Canadian aid workers, and currently there's even construction under way of a national naval monument. None of these required legislation.

(1035) What makes those people who want to have a national Holocaust monument so special that they require legislation to get it done? Do you know what, colleagues? The National Capital Commission is in the planning phase for the creation of a national monument for victims of communism. I don't want to diminish that because there are countless millions who have suffered at the hands of communism, who died, in the old U.S.S.R. and other places around the world. We're building a monument to them. That's to our credit. But we didn't require a bill.

We didn't ask the families of those victims to go out and do the fundraising. We didn't ask them to engage in contributing user fees, because that's what this is. We found the community that wanted one of these monuments and we said, oh, well, maybe they have the wherewithal to pay for it, so we don't have to pay for it. Can you imagine anything so cynical? Can you imagine any member of Parliament on this side of the table or even on that side of the table turning around and saying our cynicism is covered by their willingness to self-tax for a monument we could build just like that? We don't need the legislation.

Finances aren't the problem. Could it be greed?

(1040) Mr. Mario Laframboise : A point of order. The Chair : Mr. Laframboise. [ Translation ] Mr. Mario Laframboise : I have no problem with Mr. Volpe's filibuster. But he has no right to repeat the same things. Yes, it is true that the government wants someone else to pay... please can he come up with something else? I have no problem listening to him, but he must not be redundant. [ English ] The Chair : Merci. I would advise Mr. Volpe that there does seem to be some repetition in his comments. I will respect the point of order. [ Translation ] Hon. Joseph Volpe : Thank you, Mr. Chair.

So I will begin again in French, because I have to use just the right words to describe the concept... [ English ] The Chair : Mr. Laframboise on a point of order. [ Translation ] Mr. Mario Laframboise : He can speak in English or French, but he cannot use the same words, the same expressions and the same information over and over again. English or French, no problem, but please can he come up with something else? [ English ] The Chair : I would ask Mr. Volpe to renew his vigour in debate. Hon. Joseph Volpe : Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I must confess-- The Chair : Mr. Jean on a point of order. Mr.

Brian Jean : I want to confirm, Mr. Chair, and I understand why Mr. Volpe is filibustering this today. The Liberal Party made a promise, I think 10 or 15 years ago, to provide money for a Holocaust monument. In another 10 or 15 years they might get in government again and would be able to fulfill that promise. I'm not sure if they would once they get back into power, if they ever do. I do want to point out, Mr. Volpe, that the Winnipeg museum raised over $100 million from Canadians, a museum, frankly, that is the human rights museum, and all Canadians wanted to be involved. I understand Mr.

Volpe is filibustering, and I understand he's not getting what he wants out of this bill, but we believe on this side of the House that Canadians want to come forward and they want to be part of this. People who were directly connected to the Holocaust want to come forward and make the decisions and oversee it. That's why we believe we should move forward in one way or another, today, to get this done. We can't wait another 10 or 15 years for a Liberal promise to be kept. The Chair : Mr. Watson, on the same point of order. Mr.

Jeff Watson : Just briefly, Chair, for the benefit of the committee, in terms of past experience, when I've seen people filibustering at committee, at least they had to be relevant to the specific clause that's under consideration. If Mr. Volpe wants to speak about things more broadly that were appropriate at second reading debate and not so much at committee here.... Mr. Chair, if that understanding is correct, then I think Mr. Volpe should stay germane to the clause we are debating here and not a whole lot of other matters. The Chair : I thank everybody for their advice. I have suggested to Mr.

Volpe that there is starting to be some repetition and I would ask him to continue to stay relevant but with fresh material. Hon. Joseph Volpe : The material is always fresh, Mr. Chairman, and I accept the intervention of colleagues.

They probably suffered under the mistaken impression that perhaps I was tiring in my energy, and so just to give them an opportunity to think of themselves as having fulfilled something of benefit, I can now assure them that, no, I was not tiring, but that the added moment of freshness in the air is probably going to generate even more energy about a topic on which we should all speak with passion.

I apologize to my colleagues from the Bloc who thought my command of the English thesaurus was more limited than they had expected of me, and I'll try to live up to Le Petit Robert and Larousse , etc., if I can, in order that the repetition not fray any nerves. But it's important to keep in mind, Mr. Chairman, that repetition is the soul of integration.

In fact, if you repeat, yes, in repeating the concept we drive home the point, and the point is still the one I was talking about a moment ago: first, whether it was will, public will, public reflection, public involvement; secondly, whether it was a question of moneys--and we have clearly dealt with the issue of moneys not being the issue. It must be something to do with authority: in other words, whether the Government of Canada could have, should have, must have the authority to put this forward. Mr.

Chairman, colleagues all know that the authority is vested in the cabinet and exercised through the various ministers. Now, the only way that any community—whether it is the Jewish community, the Italian community, the Hungarian community, any community in Canada—can know that the Government of Canada, the people of Canada, side with them is if a minister of that cabinet, a minister of the crown, an administrator of the authority of the people, can actually speak on their behalf. A minister did. The Prime Minister did.

The member who presented the bill, when questioned here before this committee, said yes, he had not only consulted the Prime Minister and the cabinet and the minister responsible, but he'd gotten their approval. They've gotten their approval. Can you imagine? The Prime Minister and the cabinet said yes, the bill is great, and they supported it. Everybody supported it. But then the Prime Minister and the cabinet and the cabinet minister responsible for this pulled themselves back, apparently. So now we're looking at something like this.

This particular item says “No, no, it can't be the minister, it can't be the government, it can't be the Prime Minister who is going to incur the costs of covering the planning, designing, construction, installation, and maintaining of the monument. No, it can't be the Prime Minister. It can't be the Government of Canada. It can't be the people of Canada. It has to be somebody else”. Well, let's pick some people. We'll call it a council, but it can't be the people of Canada. It can't be the Prime Minister. That's what this amendment says.

I can't imagine that the government would promote an amendment that would cast such aspersions on the will of its own Prime Minister and cabinet minister. When the cabinet minister stood before this committee, he was sitting right there by number 18, Mr. Chairman, and I asked him if he was still committed to this. He said there was no doubt. I asked if he was willing to give a royal recommendation in case there were costs associated with this. He said there was no doubt. Well, I don't know who speaks for this government or for the people of Canada anymore.

There's no doubt, apparently, that the minister wants to cover the expenses, wants to exercise his authority. There's no doubt. There's no doubt that they will cover all the financial considerations because they're prepared to give a royal recommendation. And the government members opposite present an amendment that says, “No, we don't want to do that. It costs too much money.” We don't know. Nobody's every asked for an estimate. Nobody has done a feasibility study on this. Nobody has looked at the design projects.

Nobody has conducted a national campaign to find out who's interested, which architectural firm, what's going to be done, and where it's going to be done. Nobody has done that, so we don't know what the cost is.

(1045) Members opposite must know the costs, because they're saying they want the council to cover all this. We don't know whether it's $10 or $10 million. It doesn't matter because it's all the same to them. That $10 or $10 million is going to break the bank. It's going to ruin the finances of a government that has $255 billion in expenditures. Can you imagine that? Well, we can't imagine that. We can't. We have to take all of our colleagues at face value.

When they presented this particular bill...and I'm going to ask my colleague from Mississauga—Streetsville or my colleague from Newton—North Delta what their understanding might be when in the House they voted for something completely different, i.e. that the minister would be responsible and that the minister accepted that responsibility. Now think about this—just to change topic for a moment; the word “responsible” is there for a very specific reason, Mr.

Chairman, and that specific reason is that we live in a parliamentary system that says the government is responsible—responsible—and accountable to the people for everything it decides. So here, now, is something novel: the government members are presenting an amendment that says the minister can no longer be responsible.

(1050) The Chair : A point of order, Monsieur Laframboise. [ Translation ] Mr. Mario Laframboise : 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? [ English ] The Chair : 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. Hon. Joseph Volpe : 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 : Mrs. Crombie. Mrs. Bonnie Crombie : 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—

(1055) The Chair : Monsieur Laframboise, on a point of order. [ Translation ] Mr. Mario Laframboise : 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. [ English ] The Chair : Thank you, Monsieur Laframboise. I would have to ask, Mrs. Crombie, that you be relevant to the clause, please. Mrs. Bonnie Crombie : 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 : Mrs. Crombie, I'll have to ask you to be relevant to the clause, please. Mrs. Bonnie Crombie : 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 : Mr. Jean, on a point of order. Mr. Brian Jean : 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 : That would require unanimous consent. Mr. Brian Jean : 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 : Mr. Volpe. Hon.

Joseph Volpe : 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. Mr. Brian Jean : 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.

Hon. Joseph Volpe : I can understand that you're frustrated-- Mr. Brian Jean : I'm not frustrated, but Mrs. Crombie had the floor, and this is in relation to a point of order-- Hon. Joseph Volpe : 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 : We're on a point of order of Mr. Jean, who suggested that amendment G-6.1 be withdrawn. Monsieur Laframboise. [ Translation ] Mr. Mario Laframboise : We agree. [ English ] The Chair : Mr. Dhaliwal, did you have a comment? Mr. Sukh Dhaliwal : Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would like to support what Mr. Jean brought forward. The Chair : I will ask for unanimous consent by a show of hands, please. Unanimous consent has been granted to withdraw amendment G-6.1. (Amendment withdrawn) The Chair: Mr. Jean.

(1100) Mr. Brian Jean : Mr. Chair, I move that this committee continue to sit until clause-by-clause on this bill is finished. The Chair : Mr. Jean has proposed that we sit until the bill has been dealt with. Are there comments? Mr. Sukh Dhaliwal : Does it need unanimous consent? The Chair : No. Mrs. Crombie. Mrs. Bonnie Crombie : I would provide a friendly amendment that we continue to conduct a thorough clause-by-clause analysis at our next meeting. I know many of us have other committees to get to at the present time.

The time set aside for our committee meetings is the time we should be using to conduct committee business. There are other committees that are equally important that will require the time and attention of members of Parliament. I think many of us--certainly Mr. Mayes and I--have to move on to another committee. But I'm absolutely willing to go back to the clause-by-clause review at the next time allocation. Mr. Sukh Dhaliwal : It is 11 o'clock. The Chair : Mr. Volpe. Hon. Joseph Volpe : Mr. Chairman, I'm glad the government has decided to withdraw this particular amendment.

I don't know what its intentions are for the others, but the last time we reflected on how best to proceed on clause-by-clause, we wanted to have people from the Canadian Jewish Congress before us.

We couldn't ask them when we were in the middle of debating this particular amendment, but now that we are not in the process of deliberating on amendments, perhaps we can defer further discussion on this bill or the clause-by-clause until such time that we can get the president or CEO of the Canadian Jewish Congress here, so that they can address the issues that appear to have so captured the attention of the government members.

By that time, we can ask the signator to that particular letter that was not tabled to appear as well, and we'll know specifically what the intentions are without attributing anything to anybody. While I think the government member's intention to continue this debate might be laudable, it would really be fruitless unless we have the very important presence of those members here. So my recommendation, and I'm prepared to move it if it is so required, is that we not sit until they come before us as witnesses. I think it would be only fair.

The Chair : Unfortunately, you can't introduce a motion when we're actually debating a motion. All those in favour of the motion? (Motion agreed to) The Chair: The motion has been accepted that we continue debate on this until we're finished. We will move the committee to the West Block, room 209, and I would suggest we resume in 15 minutes. The meeting is suspended. (1100)

(1125) The Chair : Welcome back, everybody. We're returning to clause-by-clause. Mr. Jean Mr. Brian Jean : Thank you, Mr. Chair. It's great to be back. I see subclause 7(1) as good the way it is, but I would like to propose an amendment to subclause 7(2), and I will read it into the record. The first thing I think would be good is to delete the two final lines of subclause 7(2). The new subclause 7(2) would read as follows: The Council shall spearhead a fundraising campaign to cover the cost of planning, designing, constructing, installing and maintaining the Monument, and any other costs incurred by the Council.

It so happens I have that in writing, Mr. Chair, if you would like it in writing in both official languages.

(1130) The Chair : The amendment has been tabled. Debate? I'm going to ask the messenger to make a copy for everyone.

(1135) We haven't actually tabled it yet. We're waiting for Mr. Volpe to come back. Everyone now has the new amendment in front of them. An hon. member: Do you mean the same amendment? The Chair: It's a new amendment. As the motion is very similar to the previous one, I would have to rule it inadmissible. Mr. Jean. Mr. Brian Jean : I challenge you on that ruling, Mr. Chair. The Chair : Okay. The chair's ruling has been challenged. I turn it over now to Bonnie.

The Clerk : The question is, shall the decision of the chair be sustained? (Ruling of the chair overturned: nays 7; yeas 4) The Chair : The ruling of the chair has been challenged and overturned. Mr. Volpe, on a point of order. Hon. Joseph Volpe : I'm sorry I wasn't here a moment or two ago, but if this is the amendment that the colleague opposite has re-presented, which you ruled inadmissible, it was just withdrawn before we suspended. Who's playing games? This is nonsensical in the extreme. It's exactly the same wording. I know some of my colleagues have already made up their mind on this, and that's fine.

Everybody is free to do that. But to then take us to a position where we're going to withdraw something and present it all over again...I'm not sure whether the appropriate term is respectful of the process or not, but it certainly is a devious way of trying to deal with an issue that obviously wasn't going anywhere. Am I to understand now, Mr. Chairman, that we begin the debate entirely all over again, and that all of those words that appeared to some colleagues to be repetitive have now been washed off the beach?

The Chair : I have other people who want to speak on the point of order and then I'll make a ruling. Mr. Bevington. Mr. Dennis Bevington : Sorry, I wanted to speak to the motion. The Chair : Okay. Mrs. Crombie. Mrs. Bonnie Crombie : Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You know, this is simply silly gamesmanship, quite frankly, and it is unethical and beneath this government to do this. We simply wasted the past two hours in committee debating an amendment that they withdrew. Then we return 10 minutes later and they re-table the exact same amendment with a different number. It's unethical. It's bait and switch.

It's trickery, chicanery, and every other word I can come up with that means the same thing, but the bottom line is that it's wrong and it shouldn't be allowed.

(1140) The Chair : Mr. Dhaliwal. Mr. Sukh Dhaliwal : 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 : Thank you. Monsieur Laframboise. [ Translation ] Mr. Mario Laframboise : 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. [ English ] The Chair : 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. Hon.

Joseph Volpe : 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 : Mr. Jean, any comment? Mr. Brian Jean : It's self-evident. Thank you. The Chair : Thank you. The floor is open for debate. Mr. Volpe. Hon. Joseph Volpe : 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.

(1145) The Chair : Mr. Jean, on a point of order. Mr. Brian Jean : Relevance? Liberal filibuster. The Chair : I would ask, Mr. Volpe, that you now start talking about the amendment, please. Hon. Joseph Volpe : 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 : Mr. Watson on a point of order. Mr. Jeff Watson : 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 : 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. Hon. Joseph Volpe : 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 : Mr. Watson on a point of order. Mr. Jeff Watson : I haven't spoken about a new amendment, Mr. Chair. I believe you spoke about a new amendment.

The Chair : It is presented as a new amendment from the floor, and those are my words. Mr. Volpe, I'll ask you to continue. Hon. Joseph Volpe : 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?

(1150) The Chair : Mr. Watson on a point of order. Mr. Jeff Watson : 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 : Same point of order, Mr. Jean? Mr. Brian Jean : 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? The Chair : I will ask Mr. Volpe to be relevant to the amendment, please. Hon. Joseph Volpe : Mr.

Chairman, I'm trying as hard as I can. As I said, I'm trying to look at the new amendment that's before us, the new amendment with the same words, the same syllables, the same vowels and consonants grouped together to present language that is still in the English dictionary; it's even in the French dictionary. And you know what? They are exactly the same words. So I'm trying to be relevant to the constancy and the integrity of the words that are in this amendment.

I have to speak as well to the fact that this is a new amendment, so because it is a new amendment, the words that are coming out have not been heard before. They haven't been heard by anybody. In fact, they don't make any reference at all to this letter by the Canadian Jewish Congress that was read in

part into the record. So I'll only address the part that was read into the record. Because this is a new amendment, and these are new words, new syllables, new vowels, and new consonants, it means, to anybody who would follow this, that the Canadian Jewish Congress no longer supports the government's position, because it's brand new. It's completely different, even though the words, the syllables, the nouns, the consonants, the vowels, are all grouped in the same phrases and paragraphs. Mr.

Chairman, the reason the government withdrew that old amendment and introduced this new amendment is because they realized there was no support for the old amendment. They realized they were giving members of the community, the larger Canadian public, and specific elements of the Canadian public, less than what the House of Commons had insisted they receive. You know, he said a few moments ago that this issue has been on the table for 10 to 15 years. I just got off the phone with the person who signed the letter that hasn't been tabled but was read-- The Chair : On a point of order, Mr. Jean. Mr.

Brian Jean : Yes, relevance. He's filibustering. If he's going to filibuster, at least utilize the proper amendment. The Chair : I will have to ask one more time, Mr. Volpe. You're making reference to a lot of items that aren't included in this amendment. I would ask you one more time to please deal with the amendment. Hon. Joseph Volpe : Mr. Chairman, I will try very hard to do this. I mean, I wasn't challenged before, but we were dealing with an entirely different amendment.

Now this one here, because it appears to the great unwashed to be exactly the same—oh, I'm sorry, I shouldn't use that language—to be absolutely similar, by vowel, by consonant, by word, by phrase, by paragraph, then you'll have to forgive me if I try to find the self-evidence that the member from the opposite side suggests is there, because it's not obvious to everybody. It's not obvious to everybody that the government would want to redo what it cannot do by-- The Chair : Mr. Jean, on a point of order. Mr. Brian Jean : Relevance, Mr. Chair. The Chair : Again, I would have to agree, Mr. Volpe. You have-- Mrs.

Bonnie Crombie: A point of order, Mr. Chair. The Chair: I'll rule first, if I may. You have to be relevant to the conversation, and it is the amendment we're addressing. I'll address Mrs. Crombie's point of order. Mrs. Bonnie Crombie : The point of order is that the member across the table is interrupting the member who is speaking by asking for relevancy. Mr. Volpe, from my view, is speaking specifically and entirely specifically to the new amendment, describing it by consonant, by vowel, by sequence, by phrase, and he continues to be challenged. Mr.

Chairman, I ask you, can you censure this individual for constantly interrupting a member who is speaking?

(1155) The Chair : Thank you for your intervention. It's not a point of order. Mr. Volpe, I would ask that you stay relevant to the amendment. I think, as has been said before, I've tried to maintain a fair and balanced.... I don't want to have to exercise some of the rights that a chair may have to bring relevance to the discussion. I would ask that you do that. Hon. Joseph Volpe : Let me address the issue of covering the cost of planning.

Now, obviously, whenever the government, by authority given in the House of Commons, is about to engage in a particular enterprise, a particular project, it has to address the issue of costs. All of us, as responsible parliamentarians, want to know that things are affordable, whatever project we're talking about. The cost of planning a project is inherent in the overall expenditure plan that the government puts when it plans to do something. We know, Mr. Chairman, that the government, through its backbench MP, presented this bill initially. Only now are we being asked to take a look at the cost of planning.

But there is no business plan presented to us--none whatsoever--with this amendment. There's no indication of how much it will cost for the land, how much it will cost for the erection of a monument, how much it will cost for the maintenance. In fact, we don't know the scope of what is planned because we haven't even got it to the point of the design phase. So what is the cost of the design phase, and what cost is the government planning to offload onto the council? Remember that the House of Commons said that in principle, this is what we want.

There was unanimous agreement in the House of Commons by all parliamentarians of all parties that the costs would be absorbed by the House of Commons, by the Parliament of Canada. Now there's an amendment in which the government says, “No, we want the council “to cover the cost of planning”—without a business plan—“designing”.... Can you imagine? We don't know whether they're going to do a national or international competition to get people to make— The Chair : Mr. Jean on a point of order. Mr. Brian Jean : Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I looked at the original bill we had, which the House of Commons voted on, and it clearly states, “The Council shall spearhead a fundraising campaign to cover the cost of constructing the Monument”. Now, that's what we voted on. The entire House voted unanimously on that, and Mr. Volpe, with respect, just misled anybody who is listening to this, because they know, clearly, that the original vote by the House of Commons included the fundraising campaign to cover the costs. We had the same thing here. It's an amendment, not a change. So if Mr.

Volpe is going to filibuster today and take our time--and I have no problem being here until tomorrow night, actually--let's have the truth. Let's have it so that Canadians know that fundraising was mentioned in the original bill, and there's fundraising in this bill. It's consistent. The Chair : Is it on the same point of order? Hon. Joseph Volpe : Well, I guess, if you want me to go back-- The Chair : I will rule on the point of order. It's not a point of order. It is debate. Please continue. Hon. Joseph Volpe : The truth is, of course, Mr.

Chairman, that the government decided to amend every single clause in the bill that it now says it supports. I don't know whether you can have it both ways or three ways or four ways, but the government appears to want everything its way. That's irrespective of what the rules or what the procedures or what the principles that are agreed on 10 minutes ago might be today, 10 minutes later, or indeed a couple of hours later. It doesn't matter. This is a very whimsical approach to anything. Now we're still talking about covering the costs of planning and covering the costs of design.

There's no indication of the process of how to get to the point where we have a design project in place. We don't know what the cost of that might be. We don't know what the cost of the whole planning process might be. We don't even know what the cost of the construction process might be, because we haven't even taken a look at what the materials are that are going to be used and how much of those materials are going to be used. What is the extent of the project? All of these factor into the cost.

So what we might be doing is we might be saddling this council with an enormous cost that the public doesn't want to offload on to a private concern. It said we want this monument and we want it at the expense of Canadians. No, I'm sorry, it shouldn't be at the expense...it's at the contribution of all Canadians. We all want to participate and it becomes ours. We become proprietors of it because we participated through our tax structure.

We want the minister, as a representative of the government and as a representative of the people of Canada, to absorb that cost because that's the only way we can demonstrate that it is ours. It's not somebody else's. It is not some nameless council's. Anybody can make a contribution. As I indicated at another discussion with another particular amendment, in this one here we're talking about construction, installing, and maintaining a monument that reflects the will of all Canadians. Where's the business plan, as I said a moment ago? We want to be relevant. We want to be responsible.

You want to indicate that you're doing what the right thing would be. Well, tell us what the scope and size of this monument would be. Tell us what the cost range might be. And tell us in fact how this is going to be covered. What are the mechanisms? What are the responsibilities? Don't tell us that while you've accepted the principle that this be there, a private group of five individuals is going to assume all the responsibilities for covering the costs and then eventually might be able to say that this belongs to all Canadians.

Any five individuals, any 10, any 20, any 500, any one can go ahead and erect a monument on his or her own, but it reflects his or her own.... Here we're talking about covering the cost, the planning, the design, the construction, the installation, the maintenance of a monument, and any other costs included by the council. Why? Why would we tell everybody, here you are, you can go ahead? You can formulate yourselves into an organism that we will approve--although you don't need our approval--and then you can go out there and raise the money and you can build this, and then we'll call it Canadian.

That's a user fee. That's a tax on a particular community, not the general taxation system, where every Canadian makes a contribution, directly and indirectly. You know, Mr. Chairman, I can't believe the chicanery associated with trying to get this passed when the government knows it is unacceptable. It was unacceptable because you as the chair received the studied opinion of those who procedurally look at what this clause means in respect of everything else that's been done--

(1200) The Chair : Mr. Jean on a point of order. Mr. Brian Jean : It's the relevance again, Mr. Chair. I don't believe what the member is suggesting is relevant and I would ask him to quit his filibuster. The Chair : I won't rule it a point of order, but I think you were starting to move off the discussion around the amendment and I would just ask that you keep to that. Hon. Joseph Volpe : You're right. And nobody's filibustering. But I realize the talking points given to the government members are to utilize certain language in order to engage in ad hominem attacks on-- The Chair : Mr. Jean. Mr.

Brian Jean : A point of order. It's on relevance, Mr. Chair. He's talking about something that has nothing to do with the amendment we have in front of us. The Chair : Again, I would just ask Mr. Volpe to refer back to the amendment. Hon. Joseph Volpe : The new amendment has language that is so completely different from the last one that I think if you superimposed the words from it on the previous amendment, every single one of them would coincide. Somebody called this chicanery, and another person said it's an appropriate tactic of politics, but it's probably brought to a fine art by members opposite.

Let me talk to the relevance of “planning, designing, constructing, installing and maintaining”.

A council--a nameless council--is going to be responsible for the maintenance of a monument that represents all Canadians, a nameless council that can do anything it wants with the funds that are raised, a nameless council that will go forward and erect a monument that it could, at any time it wanted, anywhere in this country, plan, design, construct, install, and then even maintain ad infinitum, and forever be responsible for this, when the Government of Canada is fully equipped to do all of this, when the Government of Canada, through the House of Commons, has already expressed that it is in favour of covering the cost, the planning, the designing, the constructing, the installing, and the maintaining of a monument in perpetuity.

Government members want to deprive the Canadian public of the opportunity for the Government of Canada to do its job, to do what it was obligated to do by the vote in the House of Commons. Mr. Chairman, I can't believe that the government members want to go out into the Canadian public and crow that they are—

(1205) The Chair : Mr. Jean on a point of order. Mr. Brian Jean : On a point of order, Mr. Chair, it's the same point of order as the last 25 points of order. He's not relevant, Mr. Chair, to the amendment we have in front of us. I know he wants to continue to filibuster. You can call it anything you like, but what he's trying to do is delay this bill from happening. We've waited long enough. I think Canadians have waited long enough. Clearly, Mr. Chair, if he's going to refer again to things that are contained in the bill, I would ask that he be accurate.

For those people listening, I would ask that they look at the original bill and the new bill and the amendments by the government and see the differences. They are exactly what the Jewish community has told us they want, and that's what we're putting forward. I would just ask that the member be relevant. The Chair : Thank you. Again, I would ask Mr. Volpe to debate the amendment. I do have a list of people who are starting to line up to speak, but I would just ask that you be relevant to the amendment. Hon. Joseph Volpe : Sure. Mr. Chairman, I'm trying very hard to address the new information.

But he's introducing new information, so he can't speak to the Jewish community's support for the new information. He can't. I don't know whether that's relevant or whether it's chicanery or whatever, but certainly I have to address the issue on the point of whether we're talking about cost, planning, designing, construction. I've asked him where the business plan is. Where's the business plan for all of this? It's an amendment that came out of the blue, completely out of the blue, and there's no plan at all.

He wants a responsible committee of Parliament to go back to the House of Commons and say, “Here's a blank cheque.” We don't know what we're talking about. We don't know who's going to do it. We don't know how much it's going to cost. We think the idea is great. We're not sure. We thought it was great when it passed the House of Commons, but then we introduced nine amendments, one for every clause, to make sure that we wouldn't support it.

Then we're going to accuse the members of the opposition of filibustering for trying to be true to what the House of Commons said, to be true to what the people of Canada want to do with respect to this Holocaust memorial. So here he is, the parliamentary secretary, talking to us about a small council to do that which the Government of Canada has already committed to doing. The Chair : Mr. Jean on a point of order. Mr. Brian Jean : Thank you, Mr. Chair. Again, I would ask for relevance. I just want to know what is different today from when Mr.

Volpe stood up in the House and voted for the bill, which said, “The Council shall spearhead a fundraising campaign to cover the cost of constructing the Monument.” Now he has changed his mind. I would like to know. I understand he has to speak to the amendment, Mr. Chair, but since he's so flowery in his communication, why has his mind changed today from what it was when he stood up in the House and supported the idea of the council spearheading a fundraising campaign? What has changed today from when he voted before? Why has it changed? The Chair : Thank you. Mr. Dhaliwal on the same point of order. Mr.

Sukh Dhaliwal : Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, the parliamentary secretary, Mr. Jean, suggests that this amendment was already included in the bill. Then why did he need to bring it back here? He should be able to withdraw it and work on the original wording that Mr. Volpe and every other member of Parliament, of all stripes, voted to support. The Chair : Mr. Bevington on the same point of order. Mr. Dennis Bevington : Yes, I'm having trouble with Mr. Jean's logic here because it states quite clearly in clause 6, “The Minister, in cooperation...shall oversee the planning and design of the Monument”.

So the minister would oversee the planning, he would come up with a plan and a design for a monument. Then “The Council shall spearhead a fundraising campaign to cover the cost of constructing the Monument.” So the minister determines what the design is going to be of the monument, then the council will spearhead the fundraising to construct the monument, and after that the monument will then become part of the National Capital Commission, and they would handle the ongoing maintenance and....

So the motion entered into by the government is quite different from what was in the bill here, because the bill quite clearly puts the minister responsible for overseeing the design. When you oversee the design, you establish what the construction is going to be; then you go out and fundraise for the construction, which is a specific amount of money that has been determined by the minister through the design process. What we've done here is turn this all into one clump. And if anybody has ever been involved in this kind of process, they would realize that this is quite a different approach.

You have this council that's going to go out and cover the cost for the design and the development; they're going to do this whole thing themselves. So where's the government in this? Where is the public oversight into what this monument would be? I think that's the critical element of why this amendment is different from what the bill says.

(1210) The Chair : I know we're moving down the path of debate on a point of order. I have Monsieur Laframboise and Mr. Watson, and then I'll rule, and we'll get back to the debate on the amendment. Monsieur Laframboise. [ Translation ] Mr. Mario Laframboise : Mr. Chair, the point of order had to do with the fact that we are now in the middle of a filibuster. The Liberal Party has no improvements to make. The amendment as presented just asks us to add funds to cover the costs of planning, designing and constructing the monument.

I support the people from the Jewish community when they say that, if they are going to go to the trouble of setting up a fundraising campaign, they will include maintaining the monument as well as building it. If the Liberals had made an amendment that suggested contributing to the costs rather than covering them, we could have assumed that the government would cover them if ever there was not enough money. Mr. Volpe argues that we have no plan, no figures and no analysis. He had none either when he made his amendments. So we then have no choice but to respect the requests of the community.

That is what the Bloc Québécois is doing. They are telling us that, since they are going to be conducting a fundraising campaign, it will not just be for construction, but also for maintenance, design and installation. I think that is great. Then, if you want the government to cover the costs… I still maintain that the government is responsible, under the terms that have been submitted to us. If you have amendments to improve it, I am open to them. But we see that the Liberals are opposed to that. They insist on opposing what the community wants. That is their choice, which is why we have this filibuster.

The Liberal Party has no intention of improving this bill, but rather seeking political advantage through their filibuster. I am ready to stay here. I am going to take on the Liberals anytime, anywhere. I have no problem with that. I can take all the time we need. [ English ] The Chair : I'm going to rule that it's not a point of order, and I think we were going towards debate. I think there has been good information put forward. We are discussing the amendment, and I'll refer back to Mr. Volpe to continue his debate and relevancy to the amendment. Hon.

Joseph Volpe : I thank my colleagues for their intervention, because, quite frankly, we want to clarify who is going to assume, under the act, all the costs for the planning, design, construction, installation, and maintenance of the monument. Contrary to what Monsieur Laframboise just mentioned a moment ago, we have no need to introduce an amendment to identify who would do that because we've already accepted in the amendments, and the bill, unamended clauses that the government, through the minister, be responsible for all of those.

That in fact is one of the basic principles of the bill, that the government have that responsibility for the public of Canada, not, as he says, for the Jewish community, but for everyone. That's the basic element here. Is it going to be the Canadian public who are responsible for the planning, design, erection, and maintenance of this, or is it going to be only one particular community? The Canadian public, through the House of Commons, said no, this is a Canadian issue. This is a Canadian values issue.

This is something that reflects the Canadian public, and therefore the Canadian public, through its ministers, is going to assume that responsibility. I don't need to introduce an amendment on behalf of the Liberals to say something otherwise. We agree that's going to be the case. That's why we would object to this. This particular amendment says no, it should be a council. If they aren't capable of raising those funds, the monument doesn't get built. If they don't do it in a timely fashion, it might not get built before those who really want to see it built are there to see it built.

(1215) The Chair : Mr. Jean on a point of order. Mr. Brian Jean : Relevance. There's nothing in this clause that deals with time period. The Chair : I won't rule it a point of order, but again, we are discussing an amendment to clause 7. Again, I would ask Mr. Volpe to stay relevant to that amendment, please. Hon. Joseph Volpe : Who pays is a fundamental component of the expenditure plan envisaged by the bill.

The government has, with this plan, with this amendment, turned around and said the financial responsibility lies with the council and with the individuals we put on the council and their ability to raise those funds. In fact, they might even take a look at spearheading a campaign to cover the costs. Why would you treat particular members of a community differently from all the others who have received a monument in the national capital region? Why?

Why would you say that this group of people, now on a council, now have to assume the financial liabilities associated with the planning, design, construction, installation, and maintenance of a monument when the Government of Canada, directly or through the National Capital Commission, already has the funds available and is already able to do all of this legislatively without even having to have either the bill or the amendment? I think the government is really stalling on the intention expressed by the House of Commons.

They don't want to build this, and they're hoping that the members of the Jewish community who may end up being on the council might be capable of raising the funds for we don't know what type of monument. We don't know the size because we don't know the design. We don't know the planning and we haven't got the construction plan yet either. People are asking us to buy a pig in a poke. That's what this particular clause says. It says trust us. Trust them. Don't worry, there's not going to be anything wrong. The council is going to be responsible for everything. But you know what, Mr. Chairman?

I'm not sure that people who look at this logically and look at it in terms of procedure would ever accept that such a clause should be part of a bill. It wasn't a part of the bill before, and the bill passed with every member of Parliament.... I'm constrained; I can't name them all or say who wasn't there, but everybody who was present supported it, including all the members of cabinet. It's not as if the executive branch didn't already assume a principled position of supporting this financially. Why would the government withdraw that financial support with this amendment?

Why would it say we no longer want to incur the costs of planning? Why would it say we no longer want to incur the costs of the design? Why would it refuse to absorb the costs of construction? The Chair : Mr. Jean on a point of order. An hon. member: It's completely on topic. Mr. Brian Jean : It absolutely isn't on topic. And it's inaccurate, because Mr. Volpe voted in favour before that ”The Council shall spearhead a fundraising campaign to cover the cost of constructing the Monument.” He just said that the government should be paying for it. Well, he voted for that. He voted for it in the House.

Every single member of his party who was in the House at the time voted for that. So what is different today from yesterday? Why were you in favour then and not now? The Chair : That's not a point of order, but I'll ask Mr. Volpe to continue, please. Hon. Joseph Volpe : 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.

(1220) The Chair : Monsieur Laframboise on a point of order. [ Translation ] Mr. Mario Laframboise : 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. [ English ] The Chair : 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. Hon.

Joseph Volpe : 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 [ Translation ] 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! [ English ] 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 : Monsieur Laframboise on a point of order. [ Translation ] Mr. Mario Laframboise : 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. [ English ] The Chair : 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.... Hon. Joseph Volpe : 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. [ Translation ] 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. [ English ] 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 : Mr. Jean on a point of order. Mr. Brian Jean : 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. Hon. Joseph Volpe : I'm not sure whether that means he's asking that we break for lunch.

The Chair : 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.

(1225) Hon. Joseph Volpe : 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 : Mr. Bevington. Mr.

Dennis Bevington : 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 : It can be presented as a subamendment that becomes votable. Mr. Dennis Bevington : 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 : 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.

(1230) Mr. Brian Jean : 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. Hon. Joseph Volpe : I have a point of order. The Chair : Mr. Volpe on a point of order. Hon. Joseph Volpe : 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 : Monsieur Laframboise. [ Translation ] Mr. Mario Laframboise : 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. [ English ] The Chair : Mr. Volpe on a point of order. Hon. Joseph Volpe : I've always been willing to cooperate and help people out. If Mr. Laframboise is asking the committee to adjourn so that he can negotiate discussions on clause 8 with Mr.

Bevington on his subamendment, then I'd be prepared to entertain a motion to suspend or adjourn, whichever is more convenient, while he conducts that negotiation. Otherwise, there isn't another amendment to talk about. The Chair : Mr. Jean. Mr. Brian Jean : In relation to this point of order, I would certainly not object to taking the current clause and suspending that vote until such time as we vote on the next clause, if that would make Mr. Volpe happy. Then we could vote on clause 8 and go back to clause 7. The amendment that Mr. Laframboise is proposing and Mr.

Bevington is interested in could then be dealt with. And then we could vote on clause 7. There's nothing that precludes this committee from doing that. The Chair : It's been proposed that we would stand clause 7, with the idea of having amendments introduced in clause 8 that may satisfy Mr. Bevington's concerns. To do that, we would need unanimous consent. Mr. Brian Jean : Mr. Chair, you have unanimous consent from the members on the government side. The Chair : I'm sensing that there isn't unanimous consent. We can debate Mr.

Bevington's subamendment and then we will move to a vote on the subamendment and the amendment. It's on the floor that we change the word from “cover” to “support”. The floor is open for debate on that issue. Mr. Volpe. Hon. Joseph Volpe : I didn't mean to interrupt Mr. Laframboise. I was just trying to be helpful. He was talking about an approach that would help him to digest Mr. Bevington's subamendment a little bit more clearly. I thought he meant that he wanted to suspend the sitting until such time as they clarified with each other where they were going.

I wondered whether he was actually asking to do that, to which request I would have given consent. I think my colleagues on the Liberal side would have agreed with me, strange as that might appear. But I'm not sure whether Mr. Laframboise is doing this. So perhaps if he answers that question first, then we can go on with what you're suggesting. The Chair : Monsieur Laframboise. [ Translation ] Mr. Mario Laframboise : I have no objection to suspending the meeting for five minutes, so I can discuss it with Mr. Bevington. I could also speak to Mr. Volpe.

Five minutes would do the trick, but I would like unanimous consent on it. (1235) [ English ] The Chair : Mr. Laframboise is asking for five minutes, with unanimous consent, to discuss his amendment. Is there is unanimous consent at the table? Some hon. members: Agreed. The Chair: Okay. Mr. Brian Jean : We haven't heard from Mr. Volpe yet. The Chair : Do we have consent? Hon. Joseph Volpe : If that's what he wants. The Chair : Mr. Jean. Mr. Brian Jean : I'd like clarification that within a certain amount of time we will reconvene and continue. The Chair : Monsieur Laframboise has requested five minutes.

An hon. member: Five to ten minutes. The Chair: No. We'll suspend for five minutes. (1245)

(1255) The Chair : We're back again. Apparently we're going to take one more minute. (1255)

(1255) The Chair: Thank