Transport Committee on May 4th, 2006

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

Well, I can't give it to you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

And I can't either.

Go ahead, Mr. Julian.

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

Mr. Chair, I believe that you did get unanimous consent to move to our witnesses.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

I was asking the question, and Mr. Volpe brought in a point of order. I will ask the question again.

Is there unanimous consent to defer? Seeing none, the floor is open. Is there further debate?

Mr. Julian.

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

Mr. Chair, this is absolutely absurd, because the Conservatives aren't aware of the implications of what they're putting forward. They are not aware of the implications of the motion they're putting forward, and they compound it now by switching off our witnesses—

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Julian, I have to advise you that we are still debating Mr. Bélanger's motion to defer.

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

Yes, and, Mr. Chair, the motion of deferral is the only way out of this. We defer the discussion. If Mr. Fast is really concerned about the motion, really concerned about having due appreciation, he can put forward the witnesses. And I'm sure that at all four corners of this table you have support to get those witnesses here so we can ask them the appropriate questions about what the impact is on rural service delivery and what the impact is of the court judgment yesterday.

So all the Conservatives have to do, if they want to have this motion discussed responsibly, is put forward the witness list. We've been waiting for six weeks, and they refuse to do that. All they have to do is do their due diligence, put forward the witness list so we can do the appropriate due diligence, the appropriate homework, and then have consideration of the motion. But they're putting the cart before the horse. They want the motion to go through, regardless of what the implications are.

The facts, as established by the Ontario Court of Appeal, are pretty compelling. The facts as established state that Canada Post is a crown corporation—

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Fast, on a point of order.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Is Mr. Julian debating his own point of order? I believe he said point of order. Is he debating Mr. Bélanger's deferral motion, a dilatory motion? What is he speaking to, for clarification?

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

I'm on the speakers list speaking to Mr. Bélanger's motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Julian is on the floor speaking to Mr. Bélanger's motion to defer. And I would just ask all committee members to be as on target as possible with the issue we're discussing.

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

The Ontario Court of Appeal decision states that:

Canada Post is a Crown corporation established to provide universal mail service in Canada—a lightly populated, but geographically vast country. CP is required to provide mail service to all points in Canada, however remote, at reasonable cost, but in a financially viable way. CP charges a uniform rate for its various classes of service. This uniform rate has been a tradition of the Canadian postal administration since it began and remains a core component of CP's system.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Jean, on a point of order.

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

We are discussing the deferral motion, and I think I would just ask that you refer to it in your comments to make it relevant.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The relevancy is this decision from yesterday. Obviously it provides an additional reason for this committee to defer this discussion, because we have implications of the court decision and implications of messing with the system without having done our due diligence and trying to ram through a motion if this deferral motion is defeated.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Jean, on a point of order.

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

On the same point of order, Mr. Chair, I would suggest that the relevance would be in relation to the amendment, not the deferral. If he wants to argue about the deferral, let's get on with the vote Mr. Bélanger has called and deal with the relevance under the relevance section it should be dealt with, which is not this.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Again, I will just advise all committee members that we are discussing the motion to defer.

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

Yes. Mr. Chair, as Mr. Jean well knows, I'm speaking very directly to that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Again, I will advise all to speak on the motion of deferment, not on the amendment to the motion or the main motion. We are talking about the deferral of the current amendment.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

So we need to defer this discussion because of the implications. I will read three paragraphs. I'm almost finished one, and if Mr. Jean stops interrupting me I'll be able to finish those three paragraphs and complete my point.

“This uniform rate has been a tradition of the Canadian postal administration since it began, and remains a core component of Canada Post”—

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Jean, on a point of order.

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

Marleau and Montpetit are very clear that the chair has discretion in relation to relevance, and this is not relevant to a deferral motion. It is relevant, and I would agree with you it would be relevant, to the issue of the amendments themselves.

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

Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

I am going to ask Mr. Julian to please speak directly to the deferral motion. Whether it's a point of order or not, I do think that you have to speak directly to the deferral motion, not to the amendment or the original motion.