Transport Committee on May 4th, 2006

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

I'll certainly do that.

If Mr. Julian is suggesting that I'm emotional, well, when it comes to the well-being of workers in Canada, especially those who presently have jobs, you bet I'm emotional. Mr. Julian may want to take the emotion out of that process. I'm not that person. I'm going to stand up for those who have employment right now. I'm going to stand up for those in the remailing business who relied for 20 years on the fact that Canada Post itself interpreted the legislation as not providing them with an exclusive privilege.

Somehow they had a smart lawyer who found this inconsistency between the French and the English and who was able to exploit it. Now we have a situation where these companies that have done business for 20 years and have relied on the Canada Post position—that they accepted competition in the marketplace—are going to have the tables turned on them, and thousands of employees in Canada are going to be losing their jobs.

Does suspending this particular meeting until Wednesday at 3:30 help us in trying to bring it to closure if in fact we don't have a firm process in place where we'll be voting on the actual motions that are on the table, which is my motion and Mr. Volpe's amendment? I think not. I think what we have to look at is the substance of what we're trying to do here.

Yes, Mr. Julian, you may disagree. And Mr. Bélanger, you obviously disagree as well.

Bringing in more and more witnesses, while other employees in the remailing industry lose their jobs, isn't the way to go about doing it. Quite frankly, I have enough information for myself to make an informed decision. I suspect you do too. You're no dumb bunny. You've done your research on this. You have spoken to the unions. I'm sure you've even spoken to the remailers. I'm just encouraging you. Do what the electors of this country asked you to do, accept the democratic will of this committee. Let's move forward. Let's make the decision one way or another.

Quite frankly, if I'm out-voted on the remailer issue, I can go home and I can say that I did my very best for the industry, I did my very best for the employees; however, the democratic process was served. Tonight it's not being served well through the filibustering that's gone on here.

I would suggest to all of us, let's put our minds together as to what kind of a process can bring this meeting and the motions to closure.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Monsieur Laframboise.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Chairman, in addition to the ideas, we also have to consider how the committee operates. I have a hard time following my colleague Mr. Fast, for whom I have a lot of respect. He thinks that we had systematically filibustered the committee earlier, but that was not the case. Three colleagues, each from different parties, disagreed and shared their speaking time. Each of us spoke for five minutes. You cannot say that speaking for 10 or 15 minutes amounts to filibustering.

Opposition members are now asking you to give them until Wednesday to find common ground. The parliamentary secretary himself has suggested such a timeframe. You have already won support from the Liberals and are in a position to pass the motion. Colleagues are also telling you that if we do not reach an agreement by the start of next Wednesday's meeting, you can set a time limit for debate. It is as simple as that. I checked with the clerk: it can be done on Wednesday. At the start of the meeting, you can table a motion to limit debate to three or four hours, as you wish, with the support of your Liberal colleagues. That would be in order.

I fail to understand why you do not trust people who are reaching out to you. If we were all opposed to you I would understand, but that is not the case. Some colleagues are supporting you and proposing a solution, which you dismissed. The worst thing that can happen today is that we pass a motion to suspend debate. If that were to occur, you would have only yourself to blame. The problem is you do not control the committee. In one way or another, you have to negotiate with your colleagues.

Earlier, Mr. Bélanger talked about the fact that minority governments change. Today, the opposition is reaching out to the government, but it is not taking up the offer. I learn new things every day. Allow me to say that I am thoroughly enjoying myself with you today.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Jean.

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

I have just a point of clarification for Mr. Laframboise, because I think we are making progress here.

My understanding is that a closure motion or a motion to limit debate time cannot be moved once debate has started. I would like clarification from the clerk.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Jean, you are correct on that. When we resume debate on Wednesday, if it is the will of the committee to recess and resume, the first item of business will have to be to impose timelines if that's the will of the committee. If the debate begins, then there is no end period.

Mr. Jean.

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

I am prepared to amend my motion. Let's just pretend we're in a fantasy world where there are no rules.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

I would talk about what you might like to do, and not necessarily make it an amendment.

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

In my fantasy world I would amend my motion to have no time limit. It would be confirmed that this committee would not rise, and the chair would not see the clock at any time. We would continue to debate or come to a decision—or some wording such as that—that the committee would not rise until such time as each of these motions had been dealt with.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Volpe.

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

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.

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

Why would we even be discussing it, then?

[Joe Volpe]

Obviously if all of this is an accurate reflection of where the government could be and where the minister would be, then we can end the discussion now, accept the suspension, and say we're working on something, because we haven't done anything else; we've just suspended the discussion. We haven't adjourned. We don't have to come back to restart the engine all over again. We're just suspending the discussion as we did an hour ago, when we asked for about three minutes and went on for about 15. Let's go on for a little bit longer, and this time let's come back with something definitive.

That's all that's being asked. We don't need to put preconditions on anything, which, with all due respect, is what those amendments suggest. I know that there's a healthy skepticism and suspicion, and that's good, but we've talked this out quite a bit and eventually we're going to have to have a vote. We could have it right now; we could have it right now, but there's no need for it. All you have to do is say you accept this suspension of the discussion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Go ahead, Mr. Hawn.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have been quiet for the last five hours. I can't tell you how much I've enjoyed this, and how much—

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

Don't break that habit, whatever you do.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

—Jeff Watson owes me.

Actually, I must be a masochist, because I have actually enjoyed it to an extent. It was a good study in committee dynamics, or lack thereof.

I think Mr. Volpe hit something on the head a little while ago when he said the positions are pretty entrenched in terms of Mr. Bélanger and Mr. Julian and Mr. Fast—and, frankly, this side—about support to remailers or not. That is my sense also.

My sense is that we will come back on Wednesday, and Mr. Watson will come back on Wednesday in my place, and this will go on forever. It has no end. I would support what Mr. Volpe said just a moment ago: we could do the vote right now, because I don't think anybody's position is going to change.

For what it's worth—We've said on this side that the vote is whatever it is, and that's democracy. We accept the outcome of the democratic process. I, for one, haven't said anything on the whole thing, obviously, and maybe that's a good thing, but I just don't see anybody's position changing from what's been expressed here for the last five hours. From my point of view, let's get on with the vote and accept the results.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Go ahead, Mr. Fast.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Volpe referred to some healthy skepticism on this side. Yes, I'm a skeptic. Although I'm new to this job, I've been around politics for a long time. I know people's positions sometimes are driven by agendas that are beyond what we might understand at face value.

I want to follow up on what Mr. Hawn said. Mr. Volpe, you said yes, we could vote now. Why don't we? Most of us don't need a whole lot more information. And what we are suggesting, what we're agreeing with, is we're saying we're prepared to put off this decision until Wednesday.

There are those on the other side of this table who may need to get more information. It's possible that Mr. Laframboise needs to go to CUPW to get some information, maybe Mr. Julian needs more information from the remailers, right? I don't know what information they're looking for, but they have an opportunity over the next few days to do so, actually go and do the work that they feel is necessary to be done.

There are a lot of us at this table who understand the issue. It does come down to jobs. It does come down to supporting businesses that have been around for 20 years, that have relied on Canada Post's interpretation on exclusive privilege. So am I skeptical? Yes, you bet I'm skeptical. Quite frankly, there's nothing you, on the other side of this table, have put on this table that would move us to accept. There's really nothing there for us, because you're not suggesting any way of bringing closure to this debate.

So if there's no prospect of closure on Wednesday, why would we postpone the inevitable? Let's deal with the issue right here and now. And you know we do so, on this side of the table, at the risk of perhaps losing support on that side. I wish we didn't have to be here debating this matter. I wish we could have dealt with this in the first hour that we debated. That's my frustration.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Volpe, on a point of clarification.

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

Is Mr. Fast is suggesting that we vote on the amendment to my motion now?

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Yes.

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

Go ahead—

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

I'd love to vote on all the motions that are on the table right now, including—

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

No, we have two on the table, let's—