Transport Committee on May 4th, 2006

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

We've acknowledged that.

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

No, but that's why we've gone to Wednesday. We're looking for a solution, we're not looking for disruption.

Colleagues around the table, we can continue to discuss this, but I'm sure everybody's going to say the same thing over and over again. I'm imploring the government members to withdraw the amendment and to just simply say that we should go unanimously with the motion that I have put forward.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Bell.

[Don Bell, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

I'll say I agree, or te amo...or not te amo, that's the wrong thing; I mean yo también, which is Spanish for “I agree”. Te amo is “I love you”.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

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

Well thank you.

[Don Bell, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

I got the wrong one.

[An hon. member]

Not that there's anything wrong with it.

[Don Bell, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Yes, not that there's anything wrong with it. I feel a lot of love in this room right now.

What I want to say is that I was pleased to see this side agree to hold off until Wednesday so that I can be here and express my opinion on this.

I would make just a technical comment, I think.

Mr. Fast, we're not government. Government is the Prime Minister and the cabinet. We are members of the government process, maybe, or members of Parliament. From a simplistic point of view, I guess if the government—the government—felt really strongly about this, they could take action; they don't have to come to this committee. But it's been explained to us by Mr. Jean that, in his understanding, the minister wants to have the advice of this committee. I accept that.

We have diverse interests on this side of the table. I think suspending until Wednesday is being done in a good spirit. I'm very optimistic that we'll arrive at an outcome. From my point of view—not necessarily with my point of view—I believe we'll arrive at an outcome, because I see goodwill among this side.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Jean.

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

I'm going to go back to the same question, the question that I haven't had answered yet. If it's such good faith, and it's such a good thing to do, and we're working cooperatively, and we're going to work together to find a solution because we're going to have one on Wednesday, then let's put a time limit on it. I've suggested a 12-hour time limit. I've suggested a two-hour time limit. I've suggested lots of things. I haven't found one good reason why they won't agree to it. If they're acting in good faith, why wouldn't they agree to it?

I would like to read Mr. Volpe's motion, but I'm going to wait until another time, maybe another five minutes or so, because I really want to repeat it twice, as Mr. Julian did a couple of times.

Why will you not agree to a time limit to limit debate?

I will make another amendment, Mr. Chair. Or can I indeed do that?

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

It's a subamendment to the amendment?

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

Can I make one, or does it have to be another member?

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Yes, Mr. Jean, if there is a subamendment, someone else has to make it.

We're still dealing with your amendment.

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

Well, I would like to propose the option of providing another amendment, which would be an amendment that would follow that, with:

to be voted on prior to 5:30 or such other motion as may, by unanimous agreement, be put forward to substitute any of the motions that are currently before the committee.

So indeed if we find another motion that comes forward, and there's unanimous consent to do so, we substitute that for the motions that you're afraid to have a limit on.

I mean, we're prepared to do anything, as long as it has an exit strategy. We're not prepared to continue on in the same filibuster that we've had all day today.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Volpe, for clarification.

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

I'm not sure whether I would be misquoting Mr. Jean on this, but I thought I heard him say that if there is a motion presented to the committee that receives unanimous consent, then it would supersede every other motion, and that he would like to be able to put that on the record as an amendment to my motion.

Is that what I heard Mr. Jean say?

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Just for clarification, it would have to be a subamendment to Mr. Jean's amendment, and it would have to be made by another member of any party.

Mr. Jean, is that the intent? Are you saying that if, between now and 5:30 on Wednesday, an alternative motion comes forward that receives unanimous consent, we would forgo all the other motions on the table? Am I correct on what you're saying?

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

Absolutely.

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

I hope we don't have to wait until 5:30.

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

I would hope not, too. Absolutely. In fact, I'm prepared to set aside time for meetings on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, and even on Saturday and Sunday. I will cancel my plans and stay here, and I'm sure that all the other members of the government will do the same to find a resolution. But we need to find.... We have to have the clock stop sometime.

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

My point, Mr. Chair, and this is why I was seeking clarification, is that if Mr. Jean foresees the possibility of having a motion that receives unanimous support around the table because of discussions that will have taken place prior to that meeting, then really, there's no need for any other motion.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Accept his amendment.

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

No, I'm sorry. The reason I asked for a clarification is that I thought I heard him say that, and I wasn't sure whether it was the time that was playing tricks on my ears or whether I was misreading Mr. Jean's intentions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

I understand that it would have to be a subamendment. Therefore, we would have to vote on the subamendment, on the amendment by Mr. Jean, and then on the original motion. It doesn't require unanimous consent; it requires a majority.