Transport Committee on May 16th, 2007

[An hon. member]

And delete the words “at its option”?

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

No.

[Don Bell, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Do you want to delete “at its option” and replace it with “either”?

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

There seems to be some debate. I'll let you think about it for a minute, and I'll go to Mr. Julian.

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

Mr. Chair, I think Mr. Volpe attempted to address the issue, but ultimately the problem is that the government hasn't acted on this issue and hasn't done the review that the minister promised six months ago. That is the ultimate reason this committee is trying to consider this motion, and why Mr. Fast has continued to bring back his motion. We haven't done the study at this level. We haven't brought back the witnesses, as we requested weeks ago. The minister hasn't done his job to actually provoke that review of the issue.

So we're putting the cart a bit before the horse, even though I believe Mr. Volpe was sincerely trying to bring all views together. The reality is that we are providing direction to Canada Post, in the absence of the minister's acting and that review taking place. Since the review was promised, it has not been delivered.

I don't believe it's appropriate for this committee to then say that we're going to step into the void created by the lack of ministerial responsibility to meet the commitments he made in December of last year. So for those reasons, I find it difficult to support this.

I understand Mr. Volpe was sincerely attempting to address the issue; I can certainly understand that. Ultimately I think the government should have done the review, and that's why this committee is considering something that normally we wouldn't have to consider.

Secondly, as we are considering it, I believe it is fundamental that we bring back the remailers, Canada Post, and Canadian Union of Postal Workers to ask those questions before we direct Canada Post without understanding the consequences on rural mail delivery, jobs at Canada Post, and on the universal service commitment.

So we're putting the cart before the horse. I think that's unfortunate. I believe Mr. Volpe made a sincere attempt, but I find it difficult to support this motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Jean.

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

Mr. Chair, I'd like to defer my time to Mr. Fast, who was next on the list, in relation to speaking to the friendly amendment.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Yes, just inserting the word “either” is certainly acceptable.

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

Mr. Chairman—

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Monsieur Laframboise.

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

Mr. Chair, I will vote against the motion, but I will not obstruct the proceedings. I suggest we vote, please.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you, Monsieur Laframboise.

Now, Mr. Bélanger.

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

The friendly amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

I think it has to be proposed by Mr. Fast. You can't amend your amendment.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

I'll propose it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

You're proposing that we...?

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Insert the word “either” before the word “discontinue”.

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

And in French?

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

That's the friendly amendment, and it's accepted.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

I can't give you the French word for it, I'm sorry.

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

No?

Maybe I can.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

“Either”?

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

If I may, Mr. Chair, I think the first sentence should read, in French, “La Société doit ...” and not “peut”—in order to be faithful to the English version—“... à sa discrétion, soit renoncer, retirer ou consentir ...”.

I think that would be an accurate translation of the English.

[Lui Temelkovski, Liberal, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

Excellent.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

You're the professional, Monsieur Bélanger.

So basically the friendly amendment inserts “either” and leaves “either at its option”, or takes out the word?