Transport Committee on May 4th, 2006

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

If it's the same today as it's going to be on Wednesday, then I would suggest we have it today, and indeed we don't need to limit it by hours. I would like to, if possible, pass it to Mr. Fast, as he has a friendly amendment in relation to my motion.

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

Today, however, I am not sure that you will prepare and table a motion that is similar to the one we have discussed. I would be satisfied with the motion that you discussed earlier while the sitting was suspended, but you have yet to table it. The problem is that if you impose debate today, what guarantees do I have that you will table a motion that we can support? All I hope is that you respect the idea we seemed to share, i.e., to table a motion we can all live with. Following that, I will not be extending debate. If someone does, we will wait for it to end.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Jean.

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

Indeed, Monsieur Laframboise, to be blunt, I don't need to move that motion. Any member around the table can move the same motion that we've suggested, so indeed the motion can be moved on Wednesday. We can be defeated on any of the motions that we've put forward, and that motion can be carried.

It's the will of the committee. All I'm suggesting is that we need to find an end to the debate, whether it be this motion, whether it be the motion we discussed earlier in relation to a stay of enforcement, whatever it be. We just need an end, whatever that end is, even if the end is just that we will stay at this committee until finished. I believe Mr. Fast is coming forward with a friendly amendment that may be satisfactory to you, and then at that stage if one member wants to filibuster until three o'clock in the morning, that's fine. We would still continue and stay until it is finished. That is my point—in whatever that motion is.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Julian.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Chairman, I'm not going to speak long this time. The next time I come up I may be moving a motion of adjournment.

I think this is a textbook case of how government members could mishandle, in a minority Parliament, an offer from the opposition for a compromise position and for some discussions. It was offered over two hours ago. Ever since then we've had a filibuster from the Conservative side, and quite frankly, Mr. Chair, they are just destroying the goodwill that they would have had a couple of hours ago. So they can keep pushing, throwing in all kinds of motions and amendments. It is seven different things now that they've been asking of the opposition, when Mr. Volpe's compromise motion was simply giving them a guarantee that next Wednesday we would be resuming the debate on this discussion, a guarantee that they would have the discussion.

Now, because there's no closure, they have necessarily some impetus, some motivation, to working with the other parties to come up with a compromise. If they had closure, they would have no impetus and no motivation to work with the other parties. So what they have is an offer for a debate, a discussion that would take place next Wednesday. They've had that offer for two hours, and they are, quite frankly, frittering it away, because I for one am getting to the point where I think we should just be adjourning.

I will consult with my colleagues. I think, quite frankly, Mr. Chair, they should be just accepting Mr. Volpe's offer and his suggestion that we proceed to vote on the suspension.

They know that next Wednesday they will come back to the debate and the discussion on the issue and there will be motivation, I think, from all four corners of this table to work on something that might be in the interests of all four parties and might meet the test of what each of the four parties is looking for.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Monsieur Bélanger.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

I tend to agree. In the last two hours it is the first time I've been in a situation where it's the government that's resisting moving forward. That's an interesting situation.

Mr. Chair, the situation will not be the same on Wednesday. There will have been a number of days that have gone by and serious attempts to find the common ground and wording that would reflect that, with which all parties, government included, would be comfortable.

This comes not from my imagination but from the words of the only person at this table who is authorized to speak for the government. His suggestion was the one that triggered quite a realistic possibility.

Therefore, I don't accept in the least the repeated comments that things will be the same on Wednesday next week. What would have happened then is a test of the goodwill—yes, absolutely—but also a test of the capacity to work constructively, which is what we are trying to do here. If there is absolutely no intent to accept that on the part of the government, we'll find out.

I suspect that they will be surprised. I'm getting to know Mr. Fast through the spaces that we have on various committees. He should know by now that I have demonstrated flexibility in the past and that I can demonstrate that again.

To say that I can't change is not accurate, Mr. Fast. One must be careful about that.

What I have difficulty with—and I've repeated this forever—on this debate is the exclusive privilege. I do not want to get into that, because I'll be called for irrelevance and so forth, or on some subamendment to an amendment to suspend.

But be careful when you attribute intentions or designs to anyone else, because you may find that they're not quite the reality.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Fast.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Chair, I don't enjoy being lectured, quite frankly.

Mr. Bélanger, I wasn't born yesterday. I understand what goes on at tables like this. I wasn't referring to you specifically. What I said was that I'm not optimistic that there's the ability to compromise or change on your side of the table.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

I am.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

First of all, we're making the assumption that today we haven't been able to resolve anything. In fact, today we haven't even been able to resolve the issue of closure.

Then you say to me, “but you know, Mr. Fast, you'll be surprised. I think you'll be surprised on Wednesday.” You know—it's the layaway plan. “On Wednesday, I think you'll be surprised at how we'll change and compromise, and I think you'll be happy with the result.”

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

You're the ones who are stopping any progress, and that's exactly the problem.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

You're expecting me to take your word that there will actually be concrete action. I can't do that.

It is not that you're a dishonourable person. It's just that I'm dealing with six or seven other people on the other side of this table who haven't been able to see eye to eye with us on this side of the table today after four or five hours of debate. Yet you're asking me to assume this wonderful optimism, that somehow we're going to resolve this and that I'm going to be surprised at the result we have on Wednesday. I can't. I'm sorry. I'm just not at the point where I'm going to make those kinds of assumptions.

However, if you do surprise me, if we get through this and you do surprise me on Wednesday, kudos to you. But I'm not prepared to make that assumption.

Getting to the friendly amendment that my friend has reminded me of, here I'm going to go to the Bloc, because I sense that the members of the Bloc, Mr. Laframboise and Mr. Carrier, are saying that they do want to bring this to some sort of closure eventually.

You don't like the fixed times.

Mr. Jean had said one hour, or two hours, or five hours or twelve hours, whatever it was. I'm prepared to make a friendly amendment, Mr. Chair, a subamendment to Mr. Jean's.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

It would be a subamendment to the amendment

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Yes. The subamendment would be that in Mr. Jean's reference to fixed time—there was a range of times—replace 5:30 with reference to the fact that this committee would not rise on Wednesday until such time as my motion and Mr. Volpe's amendment had been voted on, unless there was unanimous consent of this committee.

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

Or such other motion as may be brought forward by any of the members in relation to international remailers.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Yes, but it would be unanimous. So in other words, this meeting would be suspended until Wednesday. Once we start that meeting, this committee won't rise until such time as we've made that decision on the main motion and Mr. Volpe's amendment or on such other motion as may be passed unanimously by this committee.

I believe that's reasonable, because what we're doing is saying that we want to bring closure to this, we want to bring this to an end, this discussion, and we'll spend whatever time it takes to get to that.

Now, if you refuse that friendly amendment—that subamendment to Mr. Jean's amendment—what you're telling us is that you're quite prepared to have this drag on and on and on. I don't think that's what Mr. Laframboise or Mr. Carrier want to do. I know that Mr. Volpe doesn't want to do that. He'd like to deal with it tonight. As to the rest of you, I don't know. I'm hoping there's more goodwill here than I'm assuming.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

I'm just getting some advice from the clerk on this subamendment. Do you want to wait until I get it technically written out, Mr. Volpe?

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

Mr. Chairman, I think we have gone on now for about two and a half hours on matters that have been under discussion.

I feel compelled, for me and for members on this side—I hope I'm not offending anybody on a partisan basis by saying this—to reinforce what I said earlier on as to the position of the members on this side of the table with respect to arriving at a solution. I think it's worth repeating that members from three different parties, who have different positions and different approaches, took the initiative presented to them by the parliamentary secretary in an off-table discussion and said, “We can work with this. Let's offer them the opportunity to deal with this matter as expeditiously as possible and cooperate with them in establishing a motion that would reflect that in wording that would be legally proper, procedurally correct, and satisfying to us.” But the first two were the operative terms.

For three different parties and members of my party—who have positions that seem to be completely different—to come to this point was really quite something. So when I offered up a suspension of the debate—and I know I'm repeating this, it's at least the fourth time I've said it—it was because I felt that the motion that would come forward at the next sitting of this committee would reflect the input of the government members as well.

That, for me, would have been a motion that would have made all the others redundant and would have made everything else moot. I don't know where, in the last two and a half hours, we lost that train of thought. I hesitate to say that it was when there was an amendment to the motion, but—

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

Point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Point of order, Mr. Jean.

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

Just to be clear, Mr. Chair, this point of order deals with—Any offer made had an end to it, and we haven't heard the end. What's the end?

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

That's not a point of order.

Continue, Mr. Volpe.

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

As I said, we were trying to put parameters on it. We had had some discussions about whether we were going to be able to resume debate on Monday or whether we were going to do it on Wednesday in order to accommodate schedules. Members on this side are every bit as concerned about the livelihoods of people who work for remailers and the livelihoods of remailers themselves and about the viability of those corporations.

That's the spirit in which we entered this. I must say that I'm a little surprised that this wasn't the position that was accepted immediately. And I thank Mr. Fast for recognizing that I was willing to be very helpful on this issue on a position on which I thought we were pretty close. I mean, after all, I moved an amendment to his motion, and he accepted it as a friendly amendment. But I think we run the risk, Mr. Chairman, of losing all the opportunities we have developed over the course of the last couple of hours by continuing this discussion.