Transport Committee on April 30th, 2007

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

Mr. Chairman, there are a number of reasons why we have to be very careful.

First of all, in the original motion, which its mover has now asked be deferred to Wednesday, there is a serious flaw. It asks our committee to recommend that the government amend. First of all, it's Parliament that wishes to recommend the amendment of laws. Also, it says “as to remove Canada Post's exclusive privilege to deliver letter mail”. My understanding of the remailers was that the dilemma was not in the delivery but in the collecting.

That's one thing. The other thing is that he refers to the letter from my leader, Mr. Dion, as though we are in contradiction to it. We absolutely are not.

Yet he's absolutely right, we have here the ability to make up our own minds. I can't speak for others, but if he reads the letter carefully, he will realize that the leader at no time supported the weakening of the exclusive privilege. I will argue, Mr. Chairman, that if you look at Canada Post, currently there are private enterprises that help Canada Post deliver on its exclusive privilege in rural delivery, for instance. There's nothing preventing remailers from existing within the situation of Canada Post having its privilege and it being respected, as Mr. Jean would have argued a year ago in the House of Commons.

There are a number of factors here that have to be taken into consideration. If he wishes to quote letters from the leader, he's absolutely free to do so, but be prepared to hear some quotes from some of his colleagues around this very table. I didn't realize we were going to get into the substance of that. But tell me when you're ready, because we will. I think members will realize that all parties previously have understood, as the courts have, the link between the exclusive privilege and the universal obligation of service. We have to be careful about tampering with that.

That's what Mr. Fast is asking, and I think to defer without having had the benefit of the minister's response would be wrong. Let's get the minister's response. He promised a year ago that it would be within days. We're a year past that now, and we still haven't seen it. I'd like to see what the government has done on this issue in the last year before we give it carte blanche, or a blank cheque, which I am not in the habit of signing, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

We'll go to Mr. Jean.

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

I agree with everything said by Mr. Fast. I think we should put it off until Wednesday so we can debate it for 30 minutes, talk about it, and deal not only with Mr. Fast's motion but also with the amendment proposed by the Liberal Party, which we haven't even had an opportunity to really dissect. I see a couple of opportunities for friendly amendments to that too.

I see that as the best opportunity, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

If I may, again at the direction of the committee, I see that we have three choices in front of us. By agreement, we can continue this discussion on Wednesday as a continuation of today's meeting, we can continue to debate today until it is decided and voted upon, or we can debate and act on the motion proposed by Mr. Fast and amended by Mr. Bélanger.

If I were to make a recommendation, I would say that I am prepared, as I did today, to set aside 15 minutes--because we have a full slate on Wednesday--to continue this discussion and hopefully give people a chance to digest the information and come back to find a solution. If not, I'll listen to the will of the committee.

Go ahead, Mr. Julian.

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

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, we have a motion that was amended and seconded. Mr. Bélanger proposed it and I seconded it. So that is what's on the table.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Actually, the motion that's on the table is the one by Mr. Fast. Mr. Bélanger's amendment is part of that. If we decide to deal with the amendment and the motion today, we will sit here until we're done with it. We will not be breaking for bells or anything. The committee has the ability and the will to stay here and make that decision.

Again, I've offered three solutions, and I'm recommending that, by agreement, I set 15 minutes aside at the end of Wednesday's meeting to give the committee a chance to have further discussion and to perhaps come back with a resolution we could all agree on. I would ask for that from the committee. If they're not prepared to do that, we can continue the debate until it's over.

Monsieur Bélanger.

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

Why don't we put the questions, and dispose of the motions?

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

We can do that, but the debate has to expire. We cannot demand that the--

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

Sure, we'd defer the debate. We don't have to have it today. The motion to defer to Wednesday is the same as to defer until we have a report from the minister. Either way, we'll have a debate at some point.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Yes, but the motion put forward by Mr. Fast was to defer it to Wednesday for discussion. You have made an amendment to that motion to defer it until we've heard comment from the minister. If we want to accept Mr. Fast's original motion to defer the debate until Wednesday, we can do that.

Mr. Julian.

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

Mr. Chair, we do have an amendment to the motion, so Mr. Bélanger is absolutely correct, that is what is on the table. Whether or not we choose to continue on Wednesday, that is what we are debating, the motion of deferral until the minister has tabled his report. Whether we vote on it now or we vote on it on Wednesday, that's where we're at.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Right. But what I am saying is that the committee has to make that decision that all debate has been exhausted and that we're prepared to vote on that amendment. Again, once we start into debate, which I'm sure will occur, we will not be able to shut down until the debate is finished, unless there's agreement at a later point in this day that says that.

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

Mr. Chair, then I would move to adjourn.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

The motion by Mr. Julian that we adjourn is on the floor. It is a non-debatable motion, and I would ask all those in favour for adjournment, please raise your hands.

I'm going to just ask that again to make sure. I saw three-three, and I want to make sure I have the right numbers.

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

Mr. Chair, I have a point of clarity, please.

I apologize for missing out on the conversation, if I did, but if we do adjourn, does the motion go to Wednesday to be dealt with?

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

If we adjourn now, the motion comes back at the request of a member or it's decided by the chairman when it can come back, but it doesn't necessarily have to come back immediately.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

But if I request that it come back at the next meeting, then it automatically comes back. Is that right?

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

It would have to be a decision of the chair or of the subcommittee to put it back onto the agenda.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

It has to be a decision of the committee or the subcommittee?

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

The chair or the subcommittee.

We are voting on Mr. Julian's motion to adjourn.

(Motion agreed to)

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

The meeting is adjourned.