Transport Committee on May 4th, 2006

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

I would like to discuss the possibility of moving the following motion: that we move the dilatory motion, plus the other two substantive motions, to Monday for the first hour of debate; at the end of that hour, a vote will be called on all three motions—the dilatory motion, as well as the two substantive motions—and at that time the will of the committee will prevail.

If we're going to adjourn this matter and take up more committee business, I would suggest that we have some methodology for how to end this, or have some sort of exit plan and exit strategy.

My proposal, Mr. Chair, would be on that basis and a first step in moving towards that. If, in the meantime, we find some other wording—though I've not been approached with it—or any other part of the motion that would be acceptable to the other members, or we could find some other way to move forward, certainly I think it would be a reasonable compromise.

I think Mr. Bélanger is correct; I don't think anything's going to be gained by going on and on and on. But at the same time, from the government's perspective, there's a lot to be lost; that is, we will lose the agenda on Monday, we will lose the agenda on Wednesday, and we will continue to lose the agenda until this matter is dealt with.

I would suggest this would be a good and fair compromise.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

We have Monsieur Bélanger, Mr. Fast, and Mr. Julian.

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

The only difficulty I can see if such a motion were moved, Mr. Chairman, is that we'd be locking ourselves into what's already there. Who knows, there may be enough creative capacity around the table and between various staff and so forth to come up with something that everyone would maybe agree with. If such a motion were approved, we would lock ourselves in. That's what I would hesitate to do.

Perhaps this wish is a loser here, but I think there's enough goodwill around—and I'm trying to display some—to give this an honest shot at coming up with something everyone can live with. And if not, then we can resume the debate from where it's left tonight, if there is a motion tonight to suspend until Monday at 3:30. I certainly would take the committee's will to do that, and I would not take it lightly. My interventions at that time will be significantly different from what they might be if we carry on today.

So I just want to give all of us a bit of time here. I hesitate to go on, because then we're getting back into debate.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Just for the information of the committee, once we deal with the dilatory motion before us, we do have the ability to vote on the amendments and the motion. And if there is agreement among the committee members to bring forward another motion that would maybe address the compromise we're all looking for, or a subamendment could be offered to correct that—

I'll go to Mr. Fast.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First of all, I'm not as optimistic as my colleague over there that we're going to come to any compromise. The issue of the remailers, to me at least, is pretty black and white: either Canada Post asserts its exclusive privilege, or the remailers continue on with their business as they have before. That one's pretty clear. I don't see where you find compromise in that position.

Be that as it may, I am aware of a comment that Mr. Bell made, and I took note of the fact that he apparently will not be here on Monday. That concerns me. He made his views known very forcefully and has taken a pretty strong position in favour of the remailers and the employees they support. That would be my concern if we suspend or adjourn until Monday. I would love to hear from Mr. Bell before I make any decision on that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Julian.

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

Mr. Chair, I think we had a compromise that was offered by Mr. Volpe and supported by Mr. Bélanger. The government can choose to refuse that. Of course, if the government chooses to refuse it, the opposition parties can choose to adjourn this meeting. So the Conservative members of this committee should be cognizant of the fact that they can't impose additional conditions on a compromise that has been offered and reached; they can't impose a shutdown of the witnesses. We already have witnesses scheduled for Monday, and they are scheduled for one hour. The first hour of committee business on Monday will have to be for the witnesses. So we wouldn't be displacing the witnesses.

Secondly, I don't believe it's appropriate at all to impose closure. As Mr. Bélanger stated, something may come out of these discussions that will be different from the motions before us now.

So I think the Conservatives have a choice to make: they can either accept adjournment, or they can accept the compromise. But they can't impose their point of view on the rest of the committee. What was offered was a suspension of this committee so that we can come back to this issue on Monday. That's a compromise, and certainly something that some of us have difficulty with, but which we are willing to accept in the interests of the committee's work as a whole. I don't believe Conservative members are in a position to try to impose their will.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

If I may, I want to advise the committee that Monday's agenda, although drawn up, has not been distributed and may be subject to change.

I have Monsieur Laframboise next.

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

Mr. Chairman, I'm going to support Mr. Volpe and Mr. Bélanger's motion. I'm trying to understand what the government is doing, but I'm having trouble.

You made a proposal which might give you the opportunity to rally—

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Laframboise, excuse me, but

I want to confirm with the committee that we're not really discussing a motion at this time. I think there was some back and forth to try to find a compromise motion, but please continue.

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

I accept the proposal that has been made. It's not a motion, but rather a proposal from Mr. Volpe and Mr. Bélanger, and I'm going to support it. What we're telling you and what we're telling the government is that over time things might end up changing in relation to this matter.

If I were you, I'd agree. I'm trying to understand why you don't want this file to move forward. With this dilatory motion, we could be discussing this until the end of the meeting, based on the standing orders. We could end up discussing it tonight, and keep discussing it until tomorrow morning.

I've already told you that I don't intend to filibuster, but if you want to play that game, we'll be here all night and all day tomorrow. I have nothing else I have to do. Right from the word go, I've been trying to understand you. Some things needs to be debated, so why don't you want to take the time to do this? If you push too hard, you're going to walk away with nothing.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Jean.

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

First, I'd like to respond to Mr. Laframboise. I've found him to be very courteous and very much a gentleman in the past, but we're not playing the game; that side or a portion of that side is playing the game. We're not filibustering. We want the will of the committee to go forward. If we lose the will of the committee on the basis of the question, then we lose it and we would respect that. But the game is not being played by us. The game is being played by that side of the table. It's not being played by you, Mr. Laframboise. You've been very clear, and I respect that, and you're a man of honour. But it has been played by other people.

I find it distasteful, but this isn't a compromise position that has been put forward by the other side. The compromise is we're trying to filibuster—From our perspective, from the government side, that side is trying to filibuster, and now we're going to agree to a five-day filibuster with nothing given back on our side. The only thing we're giving is the ability for the filibuster to maintain itself for five days, with no ability to interfere in the meantime. It's the only thing we're giving up.

The reality is we're in the same position today that we're going to be in on Monday. That's not a compromise. That's not good faith, that's not trying to do anything. We're only asking for an exit strategy, whether it be that some members are not present on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, or whatever the case may be, or whether or not other members are convinced. We want a decision made. We want the opportunity to have this motion heard.

Mr. Fast, with respect, has waited for six different meetings. It's been three weeks. We're suggesting that we find a common ground while we can find an end to it and have the will of the committee come forward.

Whatever that time may be, let's find a compromise. There's no compromise position put forward by anybody on that side, because that side's trying to filibuster.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Julian.

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

I actually wasn't on the list.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Okay. Mr. Bagnell.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

I move that we adjourn the meeting.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

We have a motion in front of us to adjourn the meeting. If the motion stands, we'll start on Monday with a clean slate, with no motions before the committee, and with the committee business at hand. We would need to have an introduction of new notices of motion to move forward on this issue.

Mr. Jean, it has to be a point of order.

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

It is a point of order and a point of clarification, Mr. Chair, in relation to what you've decreed.

What happens to the existing motion? It has not been debated. The debate has not finished on it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

A notice of motion defeats all the motions, amendments, and dilatory motions that are before us now. We have a motion to adjourn in front of us.

I will ask the committee. It's non-debatable.

Mr. Bell, on a point of clarification.

[Don Bell, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Thank you.

The difference between a motion to suspend, which was what we were discussing, and a motion to adjourn is that a motion to adjourn in effect ends the discussion of the day and the motions would have to be re-entered. If you have a motion to suspend, then those items that are on the table return.

If I can clarify for the chair and any of the members who want to know, I will not be here Monday, but I will be here Wednesday.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Okay

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

I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

The last one.

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

I would like to offer a few minutes to talk to the other side. I'd like to take a three-minute recess.