Transport Committee on April 30th, 2007

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Chair, I believe there are two aspects to this. One is to bring the motion I made back to this table so it can be discussed. The second part of it is, of course, then to discuss the merits of the motion and any amendments that Mr. Volpe or any other member of this committee might make.

So I would simply move that this particular motion be brought back for discussion on its merits on Wednesday, at our next meeting--not the amendment, forget about the amendment, just my motion, because it's off the table right now and needs to be brought back onto the table.

You will recall that at the last committee meeting we had I asked that the matter be discussed there, and the majority of this committee didn't want to put it on the table at that time. I'm asking that it be put on the table on Wednesday for a full discussion of the merits, at which time, of course, the amendment and any other amendments other members of the committee may wish to make would be considered. I believe that's reasonable and in line with what you and I had talked about.

I was hoping to get this back on the table.

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

Is he moving to table a motion?

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

No, to bring it back.

I wasn't aware the chair could put it on the table without a motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

I think I can clarify this. Because it has been brought back to the committee today, it is on the table. The motion now belongs to the committee and the committee can debate the motion and the amendment as we have it in front of us.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Chair, thank you for the clarification. The confusion was on my part. I would ask that the matter be deferred until Wednesday so we can review this particular amendment Mr. Volpe has submitted.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

I have Monsieur Bélanger, and then Mr. Julian.

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

Mr. Chairman, I spoke the first time, and I don't know how long you intend to keep this meeting going, but I have a lengthy presentation to make. It's not a filibuster; I think there are some relevant points. I've had time now to look into the matter more fully. I read the judgment of the court of appeal and I read the previous judgment on another related matter. I've read a number of speeches, some correspondence, and I think some points have to be made here.

So if there were to be any tabling, I would suggest we consider tabling this motion until such time as we've had a response from the minister, a response the minister promised in the House about a year ago on the matter of remailers. Indeed, there's an absence of the government's response and position on this matter. If you're entertaining a motion to table, I might want to amend that motion to table so that it reads: “...until such time as the minister has come forward with his report on this matter of remailers”.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Julian.

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

I would second that motion from Mr. Bélanger, Mr. Chair. We keep coming back to the same point, which is that we need more information.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

I think if we're going to do that, I'll probably have to deal with Mr. Fast's motion as it was presented first, and then move to Monsieur Bélanger's.... I'm sorry, yes, apparently Monsieur Bélanger can amend it, and Mr. Julian has seconded it.

Mr. Bell.

[Don Bell, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

The concern I have is the timing of the action after Canada Post was here. Mr. Bélanger has made reference to it, the court cases, the decisions, and then the actions of Canada Post in telling the remailers to cease and desist as a result of those actions. What I hope we would have, if we want to have a full discussion on this, is that Canada Post would cease and desist from the actions against the remailers while we have a good debate here. I don't know what the government can do, the minister, in asking Canada Post to do that while we have this discussion, because I think it's in the interests....

What I wouldn't want to do, while we discuss and debate this, is have the industry go under, because then it becomes academic what the decision is, a recommendation from this committee and ultimate decision by the government. Perhaps Mr. Jean, as the parliamentary secretary, can indicate whether the minister would be prepared to ask Canada Post to hold off on taking immediate action while we have a chance to have a good discussion and get familiar with some of the things Mr. Bélanger has reported. I'd like to understand the court decisions. I'd like to have the benefit of seeing the letter on Mr. Volpe's proposal that's been received from Canada Post and to be able to allow my friends in the Bloc the time they've asked for to be able to be brought up to date on the issues.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Fast.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

It seems to me that we're already discussing the merits of the actual motion.

I hear the members of the opposition, including the Liberal members, talking about wanting to consider this more, spend more time debating this, when in fact all we're asking is to maintain the status quo.

If there is a time and place when we should talk about changing that status quo and providing an exclusive privilege on an ongoing basis to Canada Post, that would be great. But right now there are thousands of jobs at stake.

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

I have a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Bélanger, on a point of order.

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

Mr. Chairman, the motion to table is amendable, but will you let me know if it's debatable?

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

To defer it is debatable. To table it is debatable.

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

On the motion or the substance?

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

I believe it's on the motion.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Fast.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Chair, to clarify, what we're debating now is the tabling motion, which has been amended. The issue there is that the opposition wants to buy more time, they want to do more research, and they want to have a more fulsome discussion at this table, perhaps bringing in more witnesses.

In fact, I'm puzzled, because the Liberals' own leader has come out, with any further information, and said it is their intent to support the continued operations of international remailers within Canada. So he had enough information. Now, I know each member of this committee is independent; they can make their own decisions. But it certainly seems that the official Liberal Party decision is that they are going to be supporting the remailers. It's a position that I believe is reflected on this side of the table. It's also a position that I believe the minister has given some indication he will also take. Yet we can't find some kind of consensus, at least between us and the Liberals, to move forward with this in an expeditious way. To me, that's puzzling.

Let's deal with this on Wednesday, and at least serve the Canadians who presently depend on those jobs, by moving forward quickly to assert the status quo. Then afterwards we can have discussions about whether there's any merit in changing the status quo.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

I advise the committee that we have run past our hour. I'm going to take three more comments and then make a decision.

We'll start with Mr. Volpe, Mr. Bélanger, and then Mr. Jean.

Mr. Volpe.

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

I think all members of this committee are interested in the common good of all Canadians--those who serve and profit by being here.

I note that Mr. Fast has a motion that says: “That the Committee recommend that the Government amend the Canada Post Corporation Act to clarify the English and French versions of section 14 so as to remove Canada Post' s exclusive privilege to deliver letter mail to destinations outside Canada”. He's a member of the government, he doesn't need any advice from the committee about which way to go, and the minister can proceed if that's his intention.

In the interest of abiding by the general principle that I mentioned a moment ago, we all have the interest of the common good at heart. I presented an amendment to his motion to be a bit more prescriptive about what the minister ought to do. What the minister ought to do is comply with his authority under the act. In order to provide some prescriptive advice to Canada Post, his authority under the act requires him to act in a particular fashion. That fashion is outlined in this amendment to Mr. Fast's motion.

That's why I thought he might simply say this is a friendly amendment. It gives us an opportunity to address the substance of his own motion, and if the minister is prepared to accept the advice of this committee in a broad statement, such as the one he presented, I'm sure the minister will be equally disposed to accept something more specific, and that essentially reflects the experience of people who have been in government and are trying to understand the predicament that the minister might find himself in, without being partisan about what the minister promised to do in the House and did not deliver, or did not promise and did not deliver.

This is an amendment to the motion that causes me some surprise concerning why Mr. Fast would want to defer until Wednesday, when we have the opportunity to deal with it today.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

We'll go to Monsieur Bélanger.