Mr. Chairman, I know that what we're going to do is keep this up. If we thought we had a little bit of a solution, we're going to keep this up forever.
I share the opinion that I think this matter could be dealt with by whenever we rise on Wednesday, and I don't know when that will be. I'm not sure that is a universally held position, so I apologize to my friend if I conveyed that it might be universally held. I didn't think I said that, but I thought it might be a good way to get to this.
What I'm concerned about, and I must take some umbrage with Mr. Fast on this, is that we will lose the optimism that I tried to share with everybody around the table. I realize that in the partisan world that's very easy to do.
I note some frustration on this side of the table because there was an expectation that in going forward with a suspension and working on the genesis of the motion that was proposed out of the discussion off-table we were headed in the right direction. We seem to have steered away from that a little bit because the government members want some sense of certainty.
Regrettably, that sense of certainty they're looking for increases the level of uncertainty on this side of the table. When members on this side of the table agreed with my suggestion, it was because they wanted to deal as colleagues around the table, with all sincerity, to get things done.
Since all of this is on the record, I think we have already said what everybody would want to say in order to defend a position and the interest of constituents. So what remains for us is really to think in terms of how we could work on the wording of what will be acceptable to all of us in order to defend the interests that we've all outlined.
I don't want to be the peacemaker, because peacemakers usually get the shaft in a partisan environment, but I think this is one case where there is genuine desire on the part of members on this side of the table, all three parties, to reach a positive, productive conclusion.
It strikes me as a little ironic that while we debated, before we came back, the desirability of dilatory motions, we now have the government members engaging in a debate that could be construed to be the same. My view, when I went out for a coffee and met one of the members on the government side, was that we are essentially squandering some of the time and some of the energy by continuing in this venue.
So perhaps the idea of not seeing the clock on Wednesday might be a good solution. I say “might” now, because in the course of the last hour we have muddied the waters considerably, in my view. I don't think anybody loses by having a suspension of the debate, just as I proposed it.
I don't think the government members will lose any of their positioning if we come back on Wednesday with a motion that reflects what I thought we had gotten out of off-table discussions. Speaking, if I might, purely for the Liberal members, a motion was given some consideration, and I think you know that Mr. Laframboise and Mr. Carrier—even the Bloc members—and Mr. Julian as well, came a long way. I think that's a fair assessment.
I would have thought that would have been received very warmly by the government side for this one reason, and I know I'm repeating myself.
The message to Canada Post right now, because all of these are recorded debates, is that the committee is in the process of entertaining a motion that will ensure remailers are not put to the stake. That's really what we're proposing, so if Canada Post is going to move, I would think that at the very least they would await the outcome of this committee's deliberations.
I might be dreaming, but the fact of the matter is that they would be in contempt of Parliament, because we're an extension of Parliament. If there are those around the table who think I'm dreaming in technicolor, I can say, having been a minister, that the minister gets up tomorrow morning, walks over to Canada Post, and says, “This is what you shall do.” He doesn't need this committee to get up and do that tomorrow morning.
What the committee has been asked to do is to provide greater authority to the minister's actions. Surely this is a very minor concession on the part of the government that will allow us to buttress the minister's actions with the authority of the committee, assuming that he values it. If he doesn't, we've just wasted five hours.