Transport Committee on May 4th, 2006

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

Mr. Chair, I'm prepared to amend the motion that I put forward to any hour, to 6:30, 7:30, 8:30, 9:30, 10:30, 11:30, 12:30, or any time the next morning, as long as there is an end to it. And if it is not necessary, then why would they not agree?

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Go ahead, Mr. Julian.

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

I'm speaking against the amendment, Mr. Chair.

I certainly wouldn't support the amendment for the simple reason that it's a blank cheque to the government. It lets them reimpose something that obviously meets with differing degrees of opposition around the table.

Mr. Volpe's motion is the compromise motion. It's to suspend the discussion. We would come back to that next Wednesday. It would give the opportunity to have the consultations that should have taken place before the Conservatives moved to rip up the agenda earlier tonight—this afternoon, actually; it was four hours ago. They ripped up the agenda and left us without having to complete our railway inquiry. That lack of consultation has put us in the position we're in now.

Mr. Volpe is offering a compromise that allows all parties to be consulted and perhaps to come up with something parties around the table could support, and the Conservatives continue to try to sabotage those discussions and that compromise. I just do not understand what the Conservatives don't get about cooperation and establishing consensus.

There seems to be a filibuster going on from the Conservatives. They're just going to keep throwing in amendments and motions and trying to screw around with what has consensus. The reality is, Mr. Chair, if they want to keep playing around with this, ultimately the meeting will be adjourned.

They can take the compromise or they can play around, but I would suggest to them that they withdraw that amendment, allow Mr. Volpe's motion to go forward unimpeded, and allow us to complete the meeting and get on to committee business that we would be discussing next Wednesday.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Before I recognize Monsieur Laframboise, there is a motion on the floor and there is an amendment proposed. That is what we are debating.

Please go ahead, Monsieur Laframboise.

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

Mr. Chairman, I've never been a game player and I don't intend to become one.

Mr. Jean has moved an interesting motion. However, I need time to discuss it. That's all I'm asking for. The government is the one who changed today's agenda. I was here to listen to witnesses and participate in the discussion. You asked me to refrain from asking questions about labour relations and legal action, and I kept my word. What I am asking the government to do today has nothing to do with game playing, let alone with setting a trap. What we're offering you, in a spirit of cooperation, is the opportunity to postpone discussion on this issue because we think we'll be able to come to an agreement before then. If I were you, I'd agree to this proposal, because it's not a trap, at least as far as the Bloc Québécois is concerned.

When interesting proposals are made, I have to discuss them with the powers-that-be in my party. Right from the word go, I told you that I didn't intend to filibuster. And look, the agenda is being tipped on its head, and I'm not being given the opportunity to question witnesses on issues I consider important, and now you're making me a proposal that you don't want me to discuss with the powers-that-be in my party.

I'm trying to understand you. As I said before, we're holding an olive branch out here. Take it, you won't regret it. That's the message I'm trying to get across to you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Monsieur Bélanger, would you like to comment?

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

I'll pass, Mr. Chairman, for now.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Jean is next.

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

I just want to respond, and it's the same issue. I haven't heard why we couldn't limit debate. Why is there a problem limiting debate on issues?

Monsieur Laframboise, you addressed the matter of the agenda. As far as the agenda goes, what we did was change the start to the end and the end to the start. It was still going to be debated today. It was still going to be discussed and voted on today; it's just taken an extra hour because of the filibuster of some members here who don't agree that they don't want it to come before the committee.

All we want is the vote, so that the will of the committee can be put forward. We have tried to find the lowest common denominator so that there's a stay of enforcement or a message of stay of enforcement to Canada Post. We put that forward as the lowest common denominator, and it was refused. Now what we're suggesting is that if we're going to go back to the same situation we're in today, we should just have a limit to it, whatever that limit is. I've been very clear that we are prepared to do a five-hour limit—even a 12-hour limit was one of the terms I suggested—but two hours would be appropriate.

I'm just suggesting that whatever the time period is, it needs some end to it, and I don't understand what the compromise would be. I'd like to hear from Mr. Laframboise in relation to that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Laframboise, to reply.

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

If we can manage to agree on this, you won't need to draw out the debate, but if we don't agree, at the start of the next meeting you'll have the support you need to limit the number of hours. You don't need to do this today. In fact, if we can agree, the debate won't be drawn out at all. If we can't agree on this, and you have a majority, at the beginning of the next meeting you'll be able to set a meeting adjournment time. I can't see where the problem is.

All I need is to get the sense that we're all going to cooperate. I'm not trying to hide anything here, I have no intention of having the next meeting last longer. This is a motion which specifically sets out what you proposed. But I need to see it in writing and I need to have an opportunity to talk about it with my colleagues. As for everything else, if we can agree on the motion, there won't be a debate, and the issue will be settled.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Jean.

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

The motion to limit can be debated, and Mr. Laframboise, I believe you at your word, but I haven't heard from every other member across the table that they're not going to filibuster this, or indeed that a substitute won't come in to filibuster this. I'm suggesting that we put a limit on it, only because there's no need not to.

If indeed we have an agreement, c'est la vie,c'est parfait. But if we don't have an agreement, we'll be in the same position we are right now, at this very moment, except that it will be five days later and Canada Post could have taken enforcement action against them. That is the worry we have. We are only asking for a stay of execution, a stay of enforcement, so that the Canadians in Toronto, in Montreal, and in Vancouver can keep their job and know where their bread is going to come from in the next month or two months, and that Canada Post will not take enforcement proceedings against them. That is what we are asking.

We want the debate to come to an end at some time. Whatever that time period may be, we believe it would be fair to come to an end, just an end date. I believe you at your word, Mr. Laframboise, but we need some sort of limit or we might as well just continue now. And let's be frank, nobody wants to. Nobody wants to continue, but we indeed need some sort of time period to end this or else we'll be in exactly the same position on Wednesday as we are right now, except that in the meantime we will have taken apart all the committee business that is relevant to the needs of Canadians, such as rail safety.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Monsieur Laframboise.

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

All that I'm saying to the parliamentary secretary is that at the start of next Wednesday's meeting he is going to have the opportunity anyway to move a motion to set a time limit. If we can't reach an agreement by Wednesday, he'll be backed up by the Liberals and other parties. I'm having troubling seeing where the problem lies.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

I have a list here. Monsieur Bélanger.

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

Mr. Chairman, one of the positive aspects of a minority government—and I'm speaking from experience on two previous occasions—is that nobody can really lay down the law and limit debate. Nobody can use the guillotine to do this. As a parliamentarian, I find that to be one of the most interesting aspects resulting from a minority government situation.

After voting, we put forward an approach that my colleague Mr. Volpe qualified, and rightly so, as constructive. We said that we'd look for some sort of middle ground in order to reach our common objectives. And that is still our wish on this side. The fact that the government is bent on railroading this process will jeopardize what is supposed to be a constructive approach.

I want the parliamentary secretary to put an end to this, to withdraw the amendment, and to support the motion to suspend our business until next Wednesday. This would give this constructive approach a chance at satisfying everybody's needs. If we can't do this, in all likelihood the debate will drag on throughout the evening and night, and we'll end up wasting a whole lot of energy, and that certainly wouldn't be constructive.

I'd appeal to the good faith of everyone around this table to give this constructive approach a chance.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Fast.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Bélanger made reference to goodwill. I think anyone watching the proceedings here today knows there is very little goodwill left because there are agendas at play.

I refer specifically to positions taken by Mr. Julian. As all of you know, my motion was brought forward several weeks ago. Over the last six weeks, every time I made an attempt to have it discussed here it was put off to the next meeting and the next meeting and the next meeting.

Quite frankly, I'm not surprised, because Mr. Julian has his agenda at play. I don't think any of us are under any illusions what that agenda might be.

At least Mr. Bélanger was fairly clear. He went on for quite a long time with his monologue.

Mr. Bélanger, you said that a minority Parliament is a situation where no one party can impose its will. That's true, but when you try to arrive at a consensus around a table like this, the majority still prevails.

Unfortunately, there's an element within our system called the filibuster, which we've seen today at this table from a number of members, and that filibuster allows individual members to drag on proceedings to ensure that any decision is delayed. Clearly, that's been the experience around this table today. Anyone who is watching these proceedings will know it for what it is.

I think we need to focus on the real issue we're dealing with. It is not a matter of doing all kinds of studies about the relationship between rural mail delivery and remailers. That issue was brought up by one witness, and it was CUPW when they were here, Deborah Bourque.

The issue that faces us is existing employees, Canadians who have employment in the remailing industry, thousands of employees who may be out of a job tomorrow or the next day because we are not acting.

I know Mr. Julian is quite happy with that position. He would like to see Canadian workers lose their jobs because he is hoping somebody else will be able to hire them.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Julian, on a point of order.

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

Mr. Chair, on a point of order, not only is this not relevant, it's personally insulting and degrading. If the Conservatives are reduced to that point, they should just go home. This is absolutely inappropriate commentary.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

It's not a point of order, but I will ask Mr. Fast to stay relevant to the motion we're debating, which is that the amendment of all three motions be voted on by 5:30 p.m. on Wednesday.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Well, Mr. Chair, I will be as relevant as Mr. Julian was in the proceedings about an hour ago when you reminded him, on probably at least ten occasions, to stay on topic. He never did. I will do my best to stay on topic.

It has never been my attempt to be degrading in my comments. I just want to paint the picture as it really is. This is clearly a situation of where we have the interests of the remailers and their employees pitted against Canada Post. That's clearly the issue here.

Canada Post has the legal upper hand, but the policy hand is held by government. That's not only the minister, that's all of us. We're part of that process. It's a democratic process. It's a process that should not be subject to a filibustering situation, where the will of this particular body is frustrated by those who can't stand the thought of the majority prevailing.

I understand that Mr. Volpe is supportive of suspending this matter without an exit strategy. What we're doing is simply postponing what we're already into, which is a fulsome debate on the issue. Quite frankly, if we're talking about a suspension of debate until Wednesday, with no prospect of there being an exit strategy or closure to this debate, I can't support that.

Mr. Jean has just made a constructive proposal: let's cool our heads a bit and we'll suspend these proceedings until Wednesday at 3:30. However, at that point in time, based on the supposed goodwill that has been referred to at this table, we will agree that at a fixed time, all three motions—the dilatory motion as well as the main motion with its amendment—will be dealt with. That's reasonable. It's certainly supported on this side, and given other circumstances it might be supported on that side.

What concerns me is that we're playing with the lives—the welfare—of workers in the remailing industry. That's my concern. The sooner we resolve this, the sooner those workers in the industry have some certainty in their lives. Every day we drag this on and on with these motions and deferrals, the more we do a disservice to the very people who elected us to represent them at this table. Now we're attempting to defer that decision for another three or four or five days while there's some supposed compromise that will be worked out.

I would again encourage the other members of this committee to consider what's at stake here. It's the status quo. We already have an existing situation where remailers have jobs. That industry has been there for some 20 years, without interference from Canada Post.

This is clearly a black and white issue, and I'm not sure it merits deferral or suspension. I'll support suspension, but there has to be an exit strategy. There has to be a fixed time when we actually put this matter to a vote.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Volpe.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Colleagues around the table, I know it's getting late, because I can see the goodwill that was developing is in danger of being dissipated. I don't want to engage in that particular exercise.

When I proposed my motion, I had the exit strategy that I thought everybody would be looking for very much in my mind.

Mr. Fast may be surprised, but I don't think he will be surprised to find that people on this side of the table were genuinely pleased to find common ground with members on that side of the table in off-the-table discussions about the directions we would pursue. The common ground was the genesis of the directions that prompted my motion.

In other words, the exit strategy would be the solution that Mr. Fast is looking for. I applaud him for his concern for all people. He shares our concern.

We're not going to engage in partisanship that might say you're in government and you do this, and we're in committee and we do that. It's an easy tack to take, but we really are genuinely in the mode of ensuring that whatever motion comes out of this committee is unanimous, rather than a majority vote.

I'm going to repeat it again, and I think in this I speak for everybody on this side of the table, including the other two parties. We were genuinely impressed with the suggestion put forward by Mr. Jean in off-the-table discussions.

The point of the suspension is because the exit strategy is inherent in the motion that must come forward. There is a sense by all members on this side that the matter needs to be dealt with. Nobody wants to be tied to a decision that may or may not emerge. Certainly no one wants to be moved in a direction in which he or she doesn't want to go. But we agreed we would dedicate all of our energies and resources to getting to the end spot.

I don't know if it would make Mr. Fast happy, but I think it might make him at least pleased. But I don't want to predict what will happen, because I've committed to talking with my colleagues from all three parties on this side and indeed on the other side, the government side, over the course of the next few days.

This may sound naive, but for us it isn't a question of delaying yet again. As Mr. Fast will know, I wasn't anxious to have this debate today; I was anxious to have it a week or two weeks ago.

I think we're eating up some goodwill that developed among us this evening by insisting that we predict what will and will not happen.

I think Monsieur Laframboise said it correctly, and I say this particularly to the government members. You can move the amendment that Mr. Jean proposed to my motion. You can move it as a motion on Wednesday, when we resume, if you see the discussion is not going in the direction in which it should be going. But because we've committed ourselves off the table to a collaborative approach to this, I don't see why we would want to do it.

I appeal to all four members of the government side to go forward with what I've suggested and what I've proposed. I have a sense that if we continue the discussion on the amendment to my motion, we would probably lapse into what is entirely too common in this place, when people have been around the table for an extended period of time, by saying some things that we'd like to withdraw.

I don't want to withdraw my motion to suspend, because I think it's an important approach to keeping the discussion on the table. As I said to some of the members, if we adjourn, it means we have to start the whole process over again.

As far as I'm concerned, we're halfway through the solution. The only reason we're talking about Wednesday and not Monday is that at least one member on this side of the House, who has a very important dedication to this issue, at least as significant as Mr. Fast's—I don't mean that with any disrespect—can't be here Monday.