Evidence of meeting #50 for Transport, Infrastructure and Communities in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
3:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
Thank you and good afternoon, everyone. Welcome to the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, meeting 50.
The orders of the day, pursuant to Standing Order 108—
3:35 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
Mr. Chair, I'd like to move that as first order of business today the committee deal with Mr. Fast's motion and Mr. Volpe's amendment to the motion. I ask this on the basis that Mr. Fast, who has been very patient with the committee and I think on three or four separate occasions has agreed to put his matter to the end or to another meeting, has another commitment he has to go to. As such, I would ask that we deal with this forthwith.
3:35 p.m.
Bloc
Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
Mr. Chairman, out of respect for the witnesses we have invited to appear today, we should have them speak during the first hour. We have received an agenda. Our witnesses arrived for the meeting at 3:30 p.m. They have taken their places. I hope we will show respect for them and have them speak at the time we agreed upon. We will have sufficient time afterwards to debate Mr. Fast's motion.
3:35 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
Yes, Mr. Chair, I'm speaking in the same sense as Monsieur Laframboise. This is a very complex issue. We have a court case decision that was rendered yesterday, as you well know, so this is not something that's going to take five minutes to discuss. It would be inappropriate to have our witnesses wait an hour or an hour and a half as we work through what is a very complex motion on a very complex subject.
3:35 p.m.
Liberal
Joe Volpe Liberal Eglinton—Lawrence, ON
Well, I don't have any problems with the motion, provided that our witnesses are comfortable with the fact that they might have to wait an hour. We had only given them an hour, at any rate, so I'm cognizant of the committee's obligations to everybody.
Not to be necessarily supportive of Mr. Fast's agenda, but I want to reinforce something I said a week ago, which is that we wanted to deal with this and we were going to take only a half hour to do it. Now we're putting in an hour. So if Mr. Fast, as I understand it, has other parliamentary duties in about an hour, if our witnesses are okay, I think we should deal with it.
3:35 p.m.
NDP
3:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
Well, I do have a motion before us, so I know we would have to deal with that motion by Mr. Jean.
Mr. Bell.
3:35 p.m.
Liberal
Don Bell Liberal North Vancouver, BC
When I said I'd like to hear from the witnesses, I meant—Obviously, I want to hear from the witnesses, but I'd like to hear from the witnesses whether, if we were to take a half an hour at this point—
What is your schedule? We invited you here for this time. Are you able to wait a half an hour? Do you have other—?
3:35 p.m.
Brock Winter Senior Vice-President, Operations, Canadian Pacific Railway
We can meet your schedule, whatever you feel.
3:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
So the motion on the floor by Mr. Jean is that we refer back to the motion by Mr. Fast, and the amendment that would be on the floor by Mr. Volpe.
(Motion agreed to)
3:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
With that, I will refer to Mr. Volpe, who had the floor on this issue at the time of the last adjournment, with his amendment.
I apologize to the witnesses. You're welcome to stay and visit. We'll be as quick as the committee can do it.
Mr. Volpe.
3:35 p.m.
Liberal
Joe Volpe Liberal Eglinton—Lawrence, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
You have before you, as per my distribution, an amendment to Mr. Fast's motion, in both official languages. I'm not going to read it for you.
The intent of that amendment to Mr. Fast's motion is to give some pretty specific indications about what the minister can do and ought to do if this committee were to accept the motion. Specifically, it says: (1) that the minister has to present a directive for a change in the regulations in order to find consistency in the language that ensures a definition of “letter” is consistent; and (2) that the exclusive privilege relates to domestic letters; it does not deal with international remailers.
I too have read the judgment of the other day. I think the reason we're in a position where we're reading these judgments is precisely because we have not asked the government, the minister, to act in a way that is available for him to act.
So while Mr. Fast says he would like the committee to give the minister some direction, I wanted to narrow it down and say, well, we've also done a little bit of homework, and this is the only way he can act in order to prevent the kinds of decisions on injunctions presented by the decision yesterday from putting all these businesses out of business and all of their employees out on the street.
If this committee is going to deliver a message, then it can do it in a prescriptive fashion, and that's the intent of my amendment. I'm hoping that Mr. Fast will accept this as a friendly amendment.
3:35 p.m.
Bloc
Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I have a great deal of difficulty with the message the committee is trying to send. I had the same problems during preceding discussions on Mr. Fast's motion, and I find I am having them again today with respect to the amendment tabled by Mr. Volpe.
We need to provide a brief background of the committee's business. I tabled a motion to have Canada Post, the Canadian Union of Postal Workers and International Remailers appear before the committee. You asked me not to put any questions on cases that were before the courts, and I agreed not to. You asked me not to put questions on negotiations in connection with the collective agreement between the Canadian Union of Postal Workers and Canada Post, and I agreed not to. I told you that if we had to discuss Mr. Fast's motion, I would like to have remailers' representatives and Canada Post representatives appear before the committee again so that I could put the questions I wanted to put during the discussions on my motion, which was debated in committee.
Today, every means possible are being brought to bear to change the agenda. According to the agenda, Canadian Pacific was to appear before Mr. Fast's motion is tabled. Mr. Chairman, I am trying to follow, but I have a great deal of difficulty when I find myself forced into a position where I cannot get to the bottom of things. You will therefore understand that I will vote against the amendment tabled by Mr. Volpe, and against the motion tabled by Mr. Fast.
Colleagues, I don't know whether this is the attitude you plan to have. I told you last time that I would not be obstructive, and I'm trying very hard not to be obstructive and not to stretch my comments out until 5:30. For those who don't know me, I should point out that I have already done so in a different Parliament. I can talk for hours and hours on a motion without ever repeating myself. It's fun for me. I'm not doing it today, but I hope you do understand that I have a great deal of difficulty with the fact that you're trying every way you can to distort the agenda and force me to accept things I do not wish to accept.
I have had the same goal from the very start, to engage in transparent debate. That is why I would have liked Canada Post and the remailers' representatives to appear. I will stop here this time, but I hope you don't make a habit of this.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
3:40 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
Mr. Chairman, I'm very disappointed that the Conservatives have tried to change the agenda. It has often been said, every time Mr. Fast brought the issue back, that we hadn't done our homework. Mr. Laframboise said that Canada Post and the remailers' representatives should come back before the committee comes to a decision.
There is no rationale for changing the agenda without respect for committee procedure and committee members, who have clearly indicated they need more information and wish to ask more questions before making the decision.
To have the agenda thrown aside, as the Conservatives have done today, doesn't augur well, quite frankly, Mr. Chair, for future committee work. If that's the attitude this government is going to take towards members of the opposition who are simply trying to do their due diligence, it really speaks to how little respect and what little regard this government has for other members of the committee. We'll see how that plays out in the future.
Here we have, very clearly, a motion that was drafted prior to a court decision that came down yesterday, which I don't believe any members of the Conservative government have actually read, that has an impact on the decisions we make today. We haven't done the due diligence. We haven't invited witnesses to come back before the committee to look at the implications of this motion.
I know that Mr. Volpe is trying to be helpful with his amendments, but we don't know what the implications are. And now we're going to try to race forward and ram this through without any due regard for what the implication is for universal postal service and for postal service in rural areas.
If members of the Conservative Party are ready to sacrifice their own constituents, without understanding the implications of their gesture, that's their decision. I do not believe that this is a helpful precedent at all. I think, Mr. Chair, that this turns the committee from one in which we've had, up until now, a relationship of cooperation, generally, to one in which we will have a relationship of confrontation. If the Conservatives want to change how this committee works, they're going to have to understand that there are consequences that come from changing how the committee works.
This is completely unacceptable, Mr. Chair. It is irresponsible, I believe. The requests from Mr. Laframboise and me have been modest but important and responsible. For the Conservatives on this committee to simply sweep that aside is signalling what I fear is going to be a real degradation in the working relationships we have around this table.
3:40 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
Mr. Fast put this motion forward more than six meetings ago and has agreed by himself to put it back and deal with it. This is not about tricks. This motion was going to come forward in an hour anyway. Mr. Fast has said he is not able to do it in an hour, which means it would be seven meetings. This motion at the very most keeps the situation the same way it has been for the last 20 to 30 years. That is all this motion does—it keeps the status quo.
That's all I would like to say.