Government Operations Committee on Feb. 5th, 2024

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

This will be very quick.

Two two-hour meetings, or four hours, represent a third of what my colleague suggested initially. That is not enough, in my humble opinion. Many rural regions in Canada are having a lot of problems with the mail. I am thinking in particular about medications that are not delivered. We have been talking about this for years and years, but some reason or other is always raised.

Four hours on the topic is not very much. If we want to find reasonable, lasting solutions for people, we should plan at least three meetings, if not four. I humbly suggest this positive and reasonable amendment.

I also think it is extremely important to get an update on the situation. In some places, there are homes that have the same postal code or the same address even though they are in a different village. That is problematic for emergency services and can be fatal in some cases. Canada Post also needs to address this problem, other than passing it off to the municipalities or provinces and saying they just need to change the street names, as if that were a simple matter.

So I agree that we should hold meetings about Canada Post. I would suggest however that we say “a minimum of three” rather than “two”.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Go ahead, Mr. Powlowski.

[Marcus Powlowski, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

I want to just voice my support for Madame Vignola and Mr. Bachrach's proposal. Two meetings of two hours is not enough. I know that people living in urban areas hardly think of the mail, but having grown up in the country myself, I know that every morning we'd go down to the bottom of the driveway and check the mail. So much happens in the mail, so I agree.

The big question is how you can make it sustainable, given the fact that there probably isn't any profit and money to be made in this, but it's an important public service. I think that to properly canvass the issue, we need more than two sessions.

I'm going to call for a vote on what you guys want.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Now we have Mr. Bachrach and then Mrs. Block on the amendment.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I appreciate that my colleagues have substantive thoughts on the motion and on the issue that we're debating, which is great. It means it's going to be a good study.

I would like to have the hours of witness testimony expressed as “hours of witness testimony” as to opposed to meetings. We eat up a lot of time at meetings dealing with other matters. It often cuts into the testimony of witnesses. I had proposed 12 hours of witness testimony, which is six meetings. I would be willing to accept four meetings' worth, or eight hours, of testimony. Perhaps that's a compromise that we can reach. My concern is that we have four minutes left in this meeting, and I don't believe we're going to get to a vote on the amendment or the main motion.

With that, Mr. Chair—I believe it's in order—I will move that we postpone this debate until February 7 at 4:30 p.m.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

We're trying to get a few extra minutes to continue.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

If I may—

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Hold on just two seconds, please.

Are you looking to adjourn the vote on the amendment?

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

I can clarify my motion. I believe it's in order, and we can confirm with the clerk.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Could you confirm?

Repeat again, please, what your motion is.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Yes.

The motion is to postpone to a certain time, that certain time being February 7 at 4:30 p.m.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

I think you can vote to adjourn the amendment.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Could we ask the clerk for procedural advice on this? I think a motion to postpone until a specific time is order, is not debatable and must be put to a vote immediately.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Let me deal with it, please.

I disagree, but let me, as you're requesting me to do, consult with the clerk.

The clerk is saying what I was saying. You cannot do that. You can move to adjourn to a vote on the amendment, but you can't suspend until a certain date or put conditions on it.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Can I ask a question through you to the clerk?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Sure. Go ahead.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

At other meetings, we have had motions to postpone debate until a certain time. That is a dilatory motion that is not debatable and needs to be put to a vote.

Is my understanding unclear?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

I think you may be wrong, but I will—

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Okay. I'm open to being wrong.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

I'll let the clerk address it.

[The Clerk of the Committee, Ms. Stephanie Bond]

Thank you.

If a motion has a condition attached to it, it can't be moved while there is a motion on the floor. If it doesn't have a condition, it's a dilatory motion, such as a motion to adjourn debate, but if it has a condition attached, it has to be handled differently.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Can I ask a follow-up question on that for my edification?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Please go ahead.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

My understanding is that a motion to postpone to a specific date or a specific time is a dilatory motion. How can you move a motion to postpone to a specific time without specifying what that time is?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

You can't move that because it has a condition attached to it. The clerk's ruled and I've ruled, and you're welcome to....

We can try to get a few extra minutes in, but I'm pretty sure that if you discuss it with your colleagues off-line, we will probably come up with something, because we've seen close to three or four.

One was “at least”, and we quite often do “at least” motions, so that we have at least three meetings or four meetings. I think you'd probably find agreement to do that. We can then wrap in the other one.