Evidence of meeting #50 for Transport, Infrastructure and Communities in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
8:30 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
We have two, and then I understood that Mr. Bélanger still has his motion to—
8:30 p.m.
Liberal
Mauril Bélanger Liberal Ottawa—Vanier, ON
There are five motions on the table, perhaps six, depending on the subamendment.
8:30 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
If everyone would agree to deal with them right now, other than—Of course, we're also dealing with the suspension motion—
8:30 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
Exactly, and that's the problem. Someone would have to withdraw that, because that suspension motion does nothing. It places nothing on the table for us as government. Because you know what our position is on the remailer issue, and we feel very strongly about it. We want to protect Canadian jobs. That's the bottom line. We want to protect Canadian businesses, and simply to say we'll suspend this until Wednesday and hopefully something comes up where everybody changes their mind—it's not going to happen, folks.
There was a suggestion from Mr. Volpe that Canada Post has had notice of our deliberations. I believe Canada Post has had notice of our deliberations.
8:30 p.m.
Liberal
Joe Volpe Liberal Eglinton—Lawrence, ON
No, I don't know whether any of those people are actually working for Canada Post. There are probably observers to this.
8:30 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
I would imagine there are some remailers who would be paying attention as well.
But the point is Canada Post would not act on our deliberations here. Canada Post actually didn't act on the statement that the minister made in the House either. They continued on with their litigation and there were more court cases and more hearings and injunctive relief applied for and granted. So to rely on that I think is probably being a little bit idealistic and optimistic.
Finally, Mr. Laframboise, I do appreciate you as a member of this committee, because I think you do try to put the partisan aspect of this committee to the side when you are making decisions, but to suggest that there wasn't filibustering earlier on today I think is somewhat naive. We had long texts read into the record, for crying out loud. That's never happened since I've been on the committee.
Mr. Julian had three paragraphs. I believe Mr. Bélanger spent some 10 to 20 minutes reading written text into the record.
8:30 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
Well, I've never seen him read anything that long into the public record.
Am I skeptical? Yes, I am. Do you know how you could solve the problem? It's very simple: tell me how we're going to bring closure to this and you'll see our side cooperate.
8:30 p.m.
Bloc
Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
I have to smile when Mr. Fast tells me that I am naive. There has been no filibustering today. Some colleagues, including Mr. Bélanger, have simply wanted to state their positions. Furthermore, you will have noticed that the Liberals were divided. Mr. Bélanger's opinion is different from that of his colleagues, and he is asking for more time to better consider the issue. A good suggestion is put to him, but he is not given enough time to take a position.
To me—and I am giving you my opinion, Mr. Chairman—regardless of what the government will do, if you do not amend the act, you will find yourself on the losing end in any case. I am convinced of that. You need a legislative amendment to clarify the section in both languages, because it is incorrect. If you do not do so and if Ms. Greene, the CEO, does not take position on behalf of Canada Post—because she was appointed by your government—you will see opposition from the union. You will not win.
This debate is very interesting, but I am convinced that you will need a legislative amendment. When you will request one, if you believe that you can avoid debate in the House of Commons or in committee when hearing witnesses, then you will have been duped by either the minister or your legal department. Mr. Fast, I realize you are a lawyer and it is a good thing that we are discussing this issue, but even if we pass the motion, nothing will be settled because you will have to amend the legislation. In that case, you will have to come back to the committee to hear witnesses.
I have been repeating for about three weeks now that we have to hear the witnesses. The risk is that we end up at the same point. I am not playing games, because I am convinced that what we can accomplish here will not change anything. You might be full of good intentions, but there will have to be a legislative amendment. If no one has told you so, ask around, because you have been taken for a ride by the minister's office for the past six months. I sincerely believe that you will absolutely need to have a legislative amendment. If I am mistaken, I will apologize. So I sincerely believe that because of the ruling, the act will have to be amended. And if that is the case, then you are now wasting time.
I agree with you. If the minister does not intend to table a motion to correct the section in both languages, then you are again wasting your time. It does not really matter to me whether this takes five more days or five fewer days. Reach out to those colleagues who might support you. Go ahead. We are trying to come to an agreement with you and to give you free reign to get a motion. What we are asking you for is to say that Canada Post's exclusive privilege should not be removed. That is what everyone appears to be saying. Mr. Jean seemed to agree to the tabling of a motion. We first have to see the text and to have it analyzed by our own services. All we are asking for is some time.
You are trying to have the motion adopted today. If it is easier to suspend the sitting in order to hold another meeting and to allow you to limit the number of hours of debate, then I am ready to work with you. We can suspend debate, but we will need to have a motion at the start of next Wednesday's meeting to avoid holding three-and-a-half hour debates. I do not see anyone objecting to that, but let's do it next week because, in the meantime, you seem to be saying that we will not be able to come to an agreement. There is nothing more counter productive than that.
8:35 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
Mr. Chair, we're getting conflicting information. I was told that we can't have a motion limiting the time. Now Mr. Laframboise believes we can. I would like a ruling from the clerk so we can deal with that. Right now we can't deal with it. I don't want to be under a misunderstanding, and I don't think Monsieur Laframboise wants to be under a misunderstanding. We need to know.
8:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
As I stated earlier, before we call resumption of debate on Wednesday, we have to have a notice of motion dealt with that would set time limits. If not, we resume as we are tonight, with unlimited debate.
Mr. Jean.
8:35 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
Is it true, Mr. Chair, that the motion to limit the debate can then be filibustered by one or more members—and I did look at Mr. Julian when I said that—forever?
8:35 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
Exact enough. So indeed we will be in exactly the same place on Wednesday, even with the motion, if you support it, as we are today--exactly the same. That's the problem.
Even if we have it on Wednesday, we're no different from today. That's why there's nothing on the table for us, because we're in the same position today as one week from today.
8:35 p.m.
Bloc
Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
In any case, the motion that you will table next Wednesday will extend debate. You will therefore receive the support of the opposition parties. Some are already willing to support you. The motion that you will table will serve to extend debate until the end. That will be the purpose of the motion. You will decide that debate on the issue will end on that day. Whether we do so today or next Wednesday, you will say that we either discuss until the debate is over or try to limit debate. The fact of the matter is that that will not change anything. If it is the committee's will to end debate on the issue next Wednesday, then that is what will happen. It is as simple as that.
