Transport Committee on May 4th, 2006

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Julian, on a point of order.

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

Mr. Chair, I believe Mr. Bélanger is absolutely correct. I seconded his motion, and it was not that way.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

If the committee will be patient for one minute, I will get a ruling with some assistance from the clerk.

I'm going to suspend for a couple of minutes to get the information.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

I might need your undivided attention on this one, committee members, so that we have a full understanding of it.

On April 30, Mr. Fast moved that the consideration of his motion be moved to Wednesday, May 2. At that time, Mr. Bélanger amended this by replacing the words “to the meeting on Wednesday, May 2” with the words “until such time as the Minister has come forward with his report on the matter of remailers”.

Because the timeframe has moved past May 2, it makes both Mr. Fast's motion and Mr. Bélanger's amendment moot.

If you're interested, what you can do is make—Would it be an amendment to the motion? It would be a dilatory motion with the same words.

Basically the time has moved past the dates that were set out and established by the motion and the amendment; therefore the motion and the amendment are no longer valid.

Mr. Bélanger.

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

To clarify, I gather that you've accepted the motion from Mr. Volpe as an amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

We are debating Mr. Volpe's amendment.

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

I would argue that the amendment that I put forward to Mr. Fast's motion to defer was in order at the time. Was it not?

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Yes.

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

The time has not passed for that amendment, because the minister has still not reported.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

The motion and the amendment were made on April 30, and the date passed on May 2. I know you have amended it and taken that out, but if I understand it correctly, neither the motion nor the amendment are valid because of the timeline. You would have to make a motion.

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

I understand that, and I can do that—a motion to defer is fairly well in order all the time—but I have to understand your reasoning here.

Given that the time has passed, I can understand that the motion is no longer in order—absolutely. Otherwise we'd be going back in time, which is not feasible, at least not that we're aware of. However, the other one has not passed. The minister has not yet reported. The amendment did not have a date. It said until such time as the minister has reported. How can you declare that caduque? It's still very much in play.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Again, it is my understanding that because Mr. Fast's motion of April 30 has passed that date, the motion and the amendment are no longer valid. If there's no motion, then the amendment also becomes moot.

Mr. Julian.

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

Mr. Chair, the motion very clearly called for a date—a reporting back by the minister—which has not been superseded by events. So Mr. Bélanger is absolutely right that the motion is in order. That is what is still to be discussed.

If the motion were defeated, you're right in saying that the main motion would have been superseded by the date change. But that presumes that the committee has turned down the amendment. The committee has not made that decision yet. Mr. Bélanger is absolutely right in maintaining that the amendment is still on the floor and still subject to discussion. That's where we were when we left off debate on this point. Monsieur Bélanger is absolutely correct on that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Well, the chair would disagree with you, Mr. Julian. I would suggest that the motion Mr. Fast made became obsolete, therefore making the amendment obsolete.

You do have the ability to challenge the ruling of the chair, but I'm relying on experience and also on some direction from the clerk.

Mr. Jean.

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

I was going to make that point. We have a ruling from the chair. Mr. Julian has the prerogative to challenge that if he wishes to do so, and to deal with the consequences, but we had a motion to deal with this particular issue and we want to, as a committee. I think the ruling of the chair would stand.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Bélanger, I will suggest that you have the ability to make a dilatory motion.

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

Mr. Chairman, I'll accept your argument that since the main motion is no longer able to be considered the amendment will lapse as well. I'll buy into that. There may be some fine points that would challenge it, but I won't.

Nonetheless, I think it is something the committee ought to consider. I'm prepared to move that Mr. Fast's motion and the amendment be deferred until such time as the minister has reported, as promised, on the matter of remailers.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Julian.

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

I second that motion, Mr. Chair, for the even more compelling reason that we now have a court judgment from yesterday that has been added to the mix and the discussion on this issue, since the original motion was moved and since the amendment was moved.

This committee has to take into consideration that court document, which talks very specifically about the impact in rural areas, and talks about the relatively low cost of providing universal postal services to the urban population, the population that lives within 150 kilometres of the southern border with the United States, and that issue offsetting services that are of a higher cost to more remote communities, like those that members of the Conservative Party represent.

There are very clear impacts on rural communities. So rather than running forward, hell-bent, to adopt a motion when the due diligence has not been done, when the responsibility has not been shown, and when legitimate questions have been raised by Mr. Bélanger as well as by Monsieur Laframboise, Monsieur Carrier, and myself, those issues of what the impact of this decision would be should be taken into consideration.

Very clearly, when you had a court decision yesterday, this Conservative push to try to ram the motion through doesn't make sense. We raised it. We said very clearly that we needed more information, that the Conservatives were not aware of the implications of what they were trying to do and that there were questions that needed to be asked of Canada Post and remailers, and the Conservatives have consistently refused to do the due diligence, consistently refused to have those witnesses brought back so that the committee could make a decision that's based on substance and on actually understanding the impact.

Now, no member of the Conservative Party has actually raised the court judgment and what the impact of that would be. One member said that he had read the judgment. That's wonderful. That should raise questions in his mind, as it should raise questions in all of our minds, that it is premature to ram this motion through and it is premature to try to push forward with a motion that has implications, potentially, for rural communities across the country. We need to do that due diligence.

Mr. Bélanger's motion, I think, is a very effective one, allowing this committee to do its due diligence before it starts running after motions that have what could be considered to be perverse impacts, Mr. Chair. A perverse impact is an impact that is unforeseen. A perverse impact is one that members may not have considered when they pushed this forward. And since they're not aware of what the possible implications are and not aware of the possible implications of this extensive court judgment that refers specifically to rural postal delivery, it makes sense that the committee would take the time to do the due diligence and give it the consideration it needs.

We also have our witnesses before us today. We warned members of the Conservative Party that it would be better to hear the witnesses first. My hope is that we would simply adopt this motion and move on to hearing our witnesses on this important railway inquiry that Mr. Bell initiated. We're now losing half of this allotted timeframe around this motion. I'm sure Mr. Bell is as concerned as I am that we are spending time considering a motion without having done our due diligence, when we should be looking at the railway inquiry and the implications, particularly for British Columbia. I know Mr. Bell shares my concern about that. That's why he initiated this inquiry.

I'm hoping, Mr. Chair, that we will defer this and take the time to do the due diligence that has been requested by members from three parties around this table, so that the eventual decision we take will be the right one.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Monsieur Carrier.

[Robert Carrier, Bloc, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want to join in with those who say that our parliamentary privilege is obviously violated when we are presented with a motion about which we are not adequately informed. We avoided questioning witnesses from Canada Post or from the postal workers' union about this issue, because of the labour dispute going on at the time. We had no clear idea of the consequences of the decision that we would have to make.

I would like the remailers to describe the impact of a decision that we might have to make due to this motion. I would also like to know what Canada Post intends to do with legislation that grants it exclusive privileges, as confirmed by the Ontario Court of Appeal. I know that this is not the Quebec Court of Appeal, but I think that the Ontario Court is equally important. Given all this, I can hardly go along with a motion that goes against a decision made by the Court of Appeal. I think that we could reasonably delay adopting the motion so that we can hear witnesses and clarify the issue.

Let me raise another issue. Earlier, it was suggested that we should hear the witnesses a half an hour later than scheduled. I note that we have been discussing for nearly an hour. I think that we should wrap up the discussion and make our decision later after taking time to reflect.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you, Mr. Carrier.

Mr. Bell.

[Don Bell, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to get now, as soon as possible, to the CP Rail witnesses; that's how we were to start this meeting, and its purpose. But on this issue I have to say--and I may have a difference of opinion here with some of my colleagues—that I have supported the issue. I believe, having listened to the material—

I have read the court decision. I have read the letter from CUPW. Generally I have a record of supporting legislation that protects the right of workers. But I don't see this issue as being about the rights of workers. I see it as being about the rights of Canada Post, in this case the question of who delivers what part of the mail. And I understand there's a difference in the definition and the wording between the English and French versions as to exclusive privilege and what that means.

Having looked at the issue and the facts behind it, that for 17 years, by court acknowledgment, since 1990, CP was aware of this situation—for at least 15 of those years, it looks like, they took no action on it—my belief is that before we stand back and allow the court decisions to in fact allow existing private remailers to be put out of business, we should express an opinion.

I understand the rulings and the explanation here, that by allowing Canada Post to have the more profitable business it allows it to subsidize the less profitable business. But it's already making a good profit, and this is something that has been happening for years.

You know, the recent court judgments may precipitate—My concern is Canada Post taking immediate action against the remailer now. I'm prepared to have a full discussion on the remailer issue, as I hear from my colleagues, but I don't want to practically have irreversible action taken—because once the company is dismantled, it's not going to rebuild--that would adversely affect a situation that CP has known about, as they've acknowledged, since at least 1990.

I think it's premature to ram through a change, if you want to call it that, in the remailing structure that's been there for 20-plus years. The perverse impact that's referred to would be to change the current reality or the current status quo by not indicating our possible position, in this case my position, to the minister, to Canada Post, and to the government regarding private remailers.

So I am prepared to support the amendment, and the amended motion that would come, in Mr. Volpe's motion. In doing so I think we would maintain the current status quo and then we could still get the report from the minister and have a subsequent report if we wanted to change that position. But by passing the motion where it is now, we allow the current situation to carry on.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you, Mr. Bell.

Just for clarification, the motion that Monsieur Bélanger has put forward—please correct me if I have it wrong—is that the matter before us, dealing with the past motion and amendments, be deferred until such time as the minister has come forward with this report on the matter of remailers. Is that correct? I'm just talking about your original motion.

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

I did say in there “as promised”, I believe.