Evidence of meeting #53 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 review.
A recording is available from Parliament.
5:35 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
Does Canada Post's mandate include exclusive jurisdiction? Yes. Does it include the issue of remailers infringing on exclusive jurisdiction? Yes. Two yeses make a yes. It would be included in the new review of Canada Post's mandate.
5:35 p.m.
Liberal
Don Bell Liberal North Vancouver, BC
My understanding of it, though, is that in terms of our comments to the minister on this, the issue we're talking about on the second motion is minus the remailers. The remailer issue can be decided and commented on separately, I believe.
5:35 p.m.
Liberal
Mauril Bélanger Liberal Ottawa—Vanier, ON
That was already expressed by the committee. The will of the committee has already been expressed on that unanimously--no, not unanimously, by majority.
5:35 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
To make it very clear, Mr. Chair, it says, “provide recommendations to the terms of reference” of exclusive jurisdiction of Canada Post, and that is remailers.
5:35 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
I said, “terms of reference of any review of Canada Post”. Exclusive jurisdiction is section 14 of the act, which deals with exclusive jurisdiction and is in straight conflict with the remailers.
5:35 p.m.
Liberal
Mauril Bélanger Liberal Ottawa—Vanier, ON
Mr. Chairman, I think I've tried to demonstrate around this table a great willingness to cooperate, and so forth. The intent of this motion is very simple. If the minister is going to proceed with a review of Canada Post and therefore set some terms of reference and a method by which he'll proceed with that review, I'm proposing that this committee have a chance for input into that process--input. The minister may decide to discard it or accept it or discard some or accept some. But in no way, in absolutely no way, does this prohibit or impede the committee's ability to live up to the motion it approved two weeks ago vis-à-vis the remailers. To link the two is disingenuous. They're not linked.
5:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
Seeing that there's no further comment, I'll call the question on Mr. Bélanger's motion, with the English wording being translated to French to correctly reflect the motion itself.
(Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
5:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
Rather than delay anyone here, I've passed out a draft letter of what we might send to Air Canada. I would ask you to review it and comment back to me on Wednesday.
Mr. Julian.
5:40 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
I think the letter should go as soon as possible. I suggest we add the question of job losses in heavy aviation maintenance.
5:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
I think we had that debate on a motion. I tried to reflect the committee's feelings as well as I could in those comments.
5:40 p.m.
Conservative
5:40 p.m.
Liberal
Mauril Bélanger Liberal Ottawa—Vanier, ON
Mr. Chairman, will you entertain a motion to accept the letter as proposed?
5:40 p.m.
Conservative
5:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
The letter will go out ASAP.
On Wednesday we will be spending the first two hours of committee dealing with Bill C-6. We'll deal with the estimates in the third hour, as agreed upon at the last meeting.
Thank you.
The meeting is adjourned.
