:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
You have before you, as per my distribution, an amendment to Mr. Fast's motion, in both official languages. I'm not going to read it for you.
The intent of that amendment to Mr. Fast's motion is to give some pretty specific indications about what the minister can do and ought to do if this committee were to accept the motion. Specifically, it says: (1) that the minister has to present a directive for a change in the regulations in order to find consistency in the language that ensures a definition of “letter” is consistent; and (2) that the exclusive privilege relates to domestic letters; it does not deal with international remailers.
I too have read the judgment of the other day. I think the reason we're in a position where we're reading these judgments is precisely because we have not asked the government, the minister, to act in a way that is available for him to act.
So while Mr. Fast says he would like the committee to give the minister some direction, I wanted to narrow it down and say, well, we've also done a little bit of homework, and this is the only way he can act in order to prevent the kinds of decisions on injunctions presented by the decision yesterday from putting all these businesses out of business and all of their employees out on the street.
If this committee is going to deliver a message, then it can do it in a prescriptive fashion, and that's the intent of my amendment. I'm hoping that Mr. Fast will accept this as a friendly amendment.
:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I have a great deal of difficulty with the message the committee is trying to send. I had the same problems during preceding discussions on Mr. Fast's motion, and I find I am having them again today with respect to the amendment tabled by Mr. Volpe.
We need to provide a brief background of the committee's business. I tabled a motion to have Canada Post, the Canadian Union of Postal Workers and International Remailers appear before the committee. You asked me not to put any questions on cases that were before the courts, and I agreed not to. You asked me not to put questions on negotiations in connection with the collective agreement between the Canadian Union of Postal Workers and Canada Post, and I agreed not to. I told you that if we had to discuss Mr. Fast's motion, I would like to have remailers' representatives and Canada Post representatives appear before the committee again so that I could put the questions I wanted to put during the discussions on my motion, which was debated in committee.
Today, every means possible are being brought to bear to change the agenda. According to the agenda, Canadian Pacific was to appear before Mr. Fast's motion is tabled. Mr. Chairman, I am trying to follow, but I have a great deal of difficulty when I find myself forced into a position where I cannot get to the bottom of things. You will therefore understand that I will vote against the amendment tabled by Mr. Volpe, and against the motion tabled by Mr. Fast.
Colleagues, I don't know whether this is the attitude you plan to have. I told you last time that I would not be obstructive, and I'm trying very hard not to be obstructive and not to stretch my comments out until 5:30. For those who don't know me, I should point out that I have already done so in a different Parliament. I can talk for hours and hours on a motion without ever repeating myself. It's fun for me. I'm not doing it today, but I hope you do understand that I have a great deal of difficulty with the fact that you're trying every way you can to distort the agenda and force me to accept things I do not wish to accept.
I have had the same goal from the very start, to engage in transparent debate. That is why I would have liked Canada Post and the remailers' representatives to appear. I will stop here this time, but I hope you don't make a habit of this.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
:
Mr. Chairman, I'm very disappointed that the Conservatives have tried to change the agenda. It has often been said, every time Mr. Fast brought the issue back, that we hadn't done our homework. Mr. Laframboise said that Canada Post and the remailers' representatives should come back before the committee comes to a decision.
There is no rationale for changing the agenda without respect for committee procedure and committee members, who have clearly indicated they need more information and wish to ask more questions before making the decision.
[English]
To have the agenda thrown aside, as the Conservatives have done today, doesn't augur well, quite frankly, Mr. Chair, for future committee work. If that's the attitude this government is going to take towards members of the opposition who are simply trying to do their due diligence, it really speaks to how little respect and what little regard this government has for other members of the committee. We'll see how that plays out in the future.
Here we have, very clearly, a motion that was drafted prior to a court decision that came down yesterday, which I don't believe any members of the Conservative government have actually read, that has an impact on the decisions we make today. We haven't done the due diligence. We haven't invited witnesses to come back before the committee to look at the implications of this motion.
I know that Mr. Volpe is trying to be helpful with his amendments, but we don't know what the implications are. And now we're going to try to race forward and ram this through without any due regard for what the implication is for universal postal service and for postal service in rural areas.
If members of the Conservative Party are ready to sacrifice their own constituents, without understanding the implications of their gesture, that's their decision. I do not believe that this is a helpful precedent at all. I think, Mr. Chair, that this turns the committee from one in which we've had, up until now, a relationship of cooperation, generally, to one in which we will have a relationship of confrontation. If the Conservatives want to change how this committee works, they're going to have to understand that there are consequences that come from changing how the committee works.
This is completely unacceptable, Mr. Chair. It is irresponsible, I believe. The requests from Mr. Laframboise and me have been modest but important and responsible. For the Conservatives on this committee to simply sweep that aside is signalling what I fear is going to be a real degradation in the working relationships we have around this table.
:
I would not have supported the swap if I had been here. I thought I'd have a chance to collect my thoughts before addressing this, but since I haven't had that chance I will attempt to do so.
I have said in the past that I thought this motion was premature at best, in the sense that we've had very cursory discussions on the rather significant extent and impact of the motion before us. We asked only a few questions of some people who came here representing remailers. We barely had a chance to ask Canada Post some questions on this. Here we are tampering with a principle that has been entrenched in law for well over 25 years.
Governments in the past—whether they were Conservative or Liberal—have supported the exclusive privilege of Canada Post for very obvious reasons that are stated in law and have been interpreted as such by tribunals time and again. Now, on a whim it seems, the government is asking opposition to give carte blanche or sign a blank cheque to tamper with the privilege that has been invested in Canada Post so it also carries out its universal obligation of delivering letters.
We have heard many times from postal workers, tribunals, elected representatives, and Canada Post administrators that the two are linked. There is the universal obligation of Canada Post to deliver a letter. Whether it be from downtown Yellowknife to Halifax, or across the street in Toronto or Hamilton or Ottawa, there must be a uniformity of service accessibility throughout the country. Here we're trying to tamper with the privilege they have, the exclusivity, but we've given no consideration to and have had no discussion or debate whatsoever on what the effect of that might be on the universal obligation.
I don't represent a rural riding. I represent an urban riding, and it would probably be much better for the constituents I represent if there wasn't this universal obligation. We could probably cut a deal with Canada Post if they didn't have to carry out this universal obligation. We could have Canada Post deliver mail from across the street at a much lower rate than 53¢ a stamp. But is that the kind of country we want to build? Previous governments have said no, time and again. We'll be tampering with that if we accept this motion, and I just can't.
If we're even going to consider that, we as responsible parliamentarians have to give it due consideration, have people present the pros and cons of the case, have a chance to kick the tires, if you will, and ask questions so we can have a determination and not a blank cheque, as we're being asked for.
I think anyone who represents a rural riding here has to give their head a shake to see whether or not they know what they're doing if we approve this motion.
There are other of factors that we need to know. John McKay asked the minister over a year ago what he intended to do about remailers. John McKay quoted the answer of the minister in the official report of Hansard on May 16, 2006. He said:
—it is a very important subject. I have received representation not only from members opposite but also members from our political party. We are looking at the issue now and we will be taking note not only of that issue, but we will be advising the House as to what we want to do in the coming days.
It's now a year later, and we're still waiting to hear what the minister intends to do.
I believe Monsieur Laframboise asked the minister a similar question in the fall last year and the answer was somewhat similar: that we'll get an indication of what the government intends to do some time in December, before the year end.
We're now well beyond that, in May 2007, and we still have no indication. The closest we got on what the minister intends to do was last Monday, when he appeared before us for estimates. I don't know how many people were aware that he might be planning a review of Canada Post. He said that the government has not ruled it out and is still considering a review of Canada Post. He did not indicate in any way, shape, or form how he intended to deal with the remailers issue, and whether or not that has an impact on the universal obligation of Canada Post and its exclusive privilege.
So these are all things that we have to consider. If you look at the decisions of the Ontario Court of Appeal, and some of the argumentation being presented by Mr. Fast, in terms of there being some confusion between English and French, well, as a francophone, I don't think there's any confusion, Mr. Chairman.
The precedents of law and the jurisprudence in this country are quite clear. If one text, whether English or French, is clearer than the other, that's where we go. And the French text is very clear about exclusivity. It's not exclusivity for the whole thing; there's exclusivity for Canada Post in the pickup of mail and in the transport and delivering of it in the country.
When we say that, we get this letter waved at us, which my leader has signed, saying, well, there's confusion. There is no confusion, because Canada Post has exclusivity today for the delivery of mail, yet uses private contractors for the delivery of mail.
Correct, Mr. Chairman? I believe everyone would agree with that. So why could it not do the same thing for collection and therefore deal with the remailers?
Respecting the exclusive privilege of Canada Post and therefore maintaining its universal obligation does not mean, ipso facto, that remailers will be out of business. It's just that they'll have to deal with the one who has the exclusive privilege. That's something they've not been wanting to do.
I'm quite prepared to quote the Ontario Court of Appeal decision on this very issue. I hope that every member who has been asked to vote on this will have a chance to read this, because it is quite revealing, Mr. Chairman.
The other thing is the declarations made in the House by the minister's parliamentary secretary. They're quite revealing. I believe they might have been made at the adjournment debate. Basically, the parliamentary secretary here today was criticizing my colleague Mr. McKay for daring to question the courts. He asked repeatedly if we were not questioning the courts. No, we were not. But it seems like the government might be doing that here with this motion, because the courts—the judges—have repeatedly recognized the link between the exclusive privilege and the universal obligation of delivery. And if we tamper with that, we may wake up to the fact that rural mail service is not as good as and a hell of a lot more expensive than it is today. I don't want to wear that, Mr. Chairman, because that is not the country I'm trying to build.
Yes, some people may think I'm being a little bit far-flung when talking about building a country, but you build a country bit by bit. Treating our rural citizens as fairly and equitably as citizens who live in the urban centres is part of building a society and a country I respect.
So it is that significant, what we're being asked to do here. I hope my colleagues will vote against this. It is not the time; it is premature, and we've not done our homework.
I'm not opposed, as a responsible member of Parliament, to listening to both sides, but let's do that. We haven't right now.
I want to address a couple of issues.
I think the question of the courts and their interpretation of what exclusive privilege might mean is not a hindrance to the government making decisions about what can be done and what should not be done.
I've indicated in other questions here in this committee that the Government of Canada is obligated to ensure that the postal delivery system functions in all parts of the country. The exclusive privilege is not necessarily tied to the commercial viability of Canada Post to deliver a letter either in Nunavut or in downtown Toronto. If there's a shortfall, it is the obligation of the Government of Canada to ensure the service is provided.
Secondly, yes, the courts have pronounced on what those words mean in either of the two languages, but it does not preclude the government from taking action. It says this is what the language, in our opinion, means under these circumstances. This does not infringe on the obligation to appropriately govern.
My amendment seeks to draw this debate to a focus. Aside from making the necessary partisan political statements that we know are part and parcel of the democratic process, because they get debate going, it says what the minister ought to be doing if he or she wants to discharge the responsibility that the law or the legislation imposes. The minister would have the support of this committee if he or she did that. It's really what my amendment says.
I'm pleased the government members accept it as a friendly amendment. I think it's consistent with what my colleague from Ottawa—Vanier has indicated about trying to build a country. My focus is to ensure the government conducts its duties responsibly, and I want to hold them to task.
With respect to whether or not Canada Post is a commercially viable entity, and whether or not that prevents Canada Post from doing its job in a fashion that we think is appropriate in a modern environment, I know you've handed this out already, Mr. Chairman, in French and in English. It's a letter from CUPW urging Canada Post to invest profits in public postal service and safety. I think the first and second lines are instructive. It's very revealing about where our debates might take us. If you'll bear with me, I'll read it to you. It says:
Canada Post’s annual report announced record volumes and $119 million in net profits in 2006, its twelfth consecutive year of making millions and its twenty-fifth year of providing universal, affordable public postal service.
I don't think that the commercial issue or the viability of the commercial practices have been called into question.
For 20 years, yes, we heard whatever evidence we heard. Some would say it was not enough, and some would say it was too much. We have heard uncontested evidence that remailers have been in the business for 20 years.
Before it was interpreted, the legislation was not a problem for Canada Post. It wasn't a problem for the discharge of the responsibilities of government. It became an issue of commercial competitiveness. If that's all it is, then we can address this immediately.
My motion does not tell Canada Post that it must do X, Y, or Z. It says that in order for the minister to act, the minister has to give a consultative directive to Canada Post to amend its regulations, which have to be discussed by their board of directors. They have to be approved by Parliament. Canada Post is responsible to Parliament. We're asking the minister to take specific action.
Remember here, we're talking about a practice. We're not talking about the law. We're not talking about an interpretation of an item. We're not asking a judge or a court to intervene. We're asking that the minister discharge his responsibilities and his duties with a corporation that comes under his administrative overview and say to that administrative executive, “This is what the Government of Canada intends. Go to your council and put forward the appropriate regulations. If it doesn't meet with Parliament's approval, that's a different story, but at this stage of the game you are to cease and desist from putting these people out of business.” And there are three ways: you can exercise an option, you can discontinue, you can withdraw or you can consent. Okay, so fine, nobody's prescribing that some one specific thing be done.
My colleague from Ottawa-Vanier says we can still do subcontracting. Well, fine, nothing prevents Canada Post from engaging in that practice. What it does do is it delivers two messages. One message is we want the minister to act. The second one is we want Canada Post to stop doing what it's doing and to seek cooperation until such time as the minister's prescription is taken into consideration and works its way through the Canada Post Corporation.
Otherwise, we're asking the courts to do all of the commercial dealings that would normally be accomplished by negotiations. We're asking the courts to reverse 20 years of acceptable commercial activity and we're asking the courts to do the bidding of members of Parliament when they put businesses and people out of business and out of jobs.
Mr. Chairman and colleagues, I recognize all of us have difficulties with all of this. I recognize that. I'm delighted the government members accepted my motion as a friendly amendment, because yes, to quote Mr. Julian, I am trying to be helpful for everybody around the table. I hope everybody takes that in the spirit, because we are all here, I think, to do what my colleague from Ottawa-Vanier says, and that is, to build a society and a country. I can't see that not being done by giving the minister an opportunity to accomplish what he must.
:
I second that motion, Mr. Chair, for the even more compelling reason that we now have a court judgment from yesterday that has been added to the mix and the discussion on this issue, since the original motion was moved and since the amendment was moved.
This committee has to take into consideration that court document, which talks very specifically about the impact in rural areas, and talks about the relatively low cost of providing universal postal services to the urban population, the population that lives within 150 kilometres of the southern border with the United States, and that issue offsetting services that are of a higher cost to more remote communities, like those that members of the Conservative Party represent.
There are very clear impacts on rural communities. So rather than running forward, hell-bent, to adopt a motion when the due diligence has not been done, when the responsibility has not been shown, and when legitimate questions have been raised by Mr. Bélanger as well as by Monsieur Laframboise, Monsieur Carrier, and myself, those issues of what the impact of this decision would be should be taken into consideration.
Very clearly, when you had a court decision yesterday, this Conservative push to try to ram the motion through doesn't make sense. We raised it. We said very clearly that we needed more information, that the Conservatives were not aware of the implications of what they were trying to do and that there were questions that needed to be asked of Canada Post and remailers, and the Conservatives have consistently refused to do the due diligence, consistently refused to have those witnesses brought back so that the committee could make a decision that's based on substance and on actually understanding the impact.
Now, no member of the Conservative Party has actually raised the court judgment and what the impact of that would be. One member said that he had read the judgment. That's wonderful. That should raise questions in his mind, as it should raise questions in all of our minds, that it is premature to ram this motion through and it is premature to try to push forward with a motion that has implications, potentially, for rural communities across the country. We need to do that due diligence.
Mr. Bélanger's motion, I think, is a very effective one, allowing this committee to do its due diligence before it starts running after motions that have what could be considered to be perverse impacts, Mr. Chair. A perverse impact is an impact that is unforeseen. A perverse impact is one that members may not have considered when they pushed this forward. And since they're not aware of what the possible implications are and not aware of the possible implications of this extensive court judgment that refers specifically to rural postal delivery, it makes sense that the committee would take the time to do the due diligence and give it the consideration it needs.
We also have our witnesses before us today. We warned members of the Conservative Party that it would be better to hear the witnesses first. My hope is that we would simply adopt this motion and move on to hearing our witnesses on this important railway inquiry that Mr. Bell initiated. We're now losing half of this allotted timeframe around this motion. I'm sure Mr. Bell is as concerned as I am that we are spending time considering a motion without having done our due diligence, when we should be looking at the railway inquiry and the implications, particularly for British Columbia. I know Mr. Bell shares my concern about that. That's why he initiated this inquiry.
I'm hoping, Mr. Chair, that we will defer this and take the time to do the due diligence that has been requested by members from three parties around this table, so that the eventual decision we take will be the right one.
I'd like to get now, as soon as possible, to the CP Rail witnesses; that's how we were to start this meeting, and its purpose. But on this issue I have to say--and I may have a difference of opinion here with some of my colleagues—that I have supported the issue. I believe, having listened to the material—
I have read the court decision. I have read the letter from CUPW. Generally I have a record of supporting legislation that protects the right of workers. But I don't see this issue as being about the rights of workers. I see it as being about the rights of Canada Post, in this case the question of who delivers what part of the mail. And I understand there's a difference in the definition and the wording between the English and French versions as to exclusive privilege and what that means.
Having looked at the issue and the facts behind it, that for 17 years, by court acknowledgment, since 1990, CP was aware of this situation—for at least 15 of those years, it looks like, they took no action on it—my belief is that before we stand back and allow the court decisions to in fact allow existing private remailers to be put out of business, we should express an opinion.
I understand the rulings and the explanation here, that by allowing Canada Post to have the more profitable business it allows it to subsidize the less profitable business. But it's already making a good profit, and this is something that has been happening for years.
You know, the recent court judgments may precipitate—My concern is Canada Post taking immediate action against the remailer now. I'm prepared to have a full discussion on the remailer issue, as I hear from my colleagues, but I don't want to practically have irreversible action taken—because once the company is dismantled, it's not going to rebuild--that would adversely affect a situation that CP has known about, as they've acknowledged, since at least 1990.
I think it's premature to ram through a change, if you want to call it that, in the remailing structure that's been there for 20-plus years. The perverse impact that's referred to would be to change the current reality or the current status quo by not indicating our possible position, in this case my position, to the minister, to Canada Post, and to the government regarding private remailers.
So I am prepared to support the amendment, and the amended motion that would come, in Mr. Volpe's motion. In doing so I think we would maintain the current status quo and then we could still get the report from the minister and have a subsequent report if we wanted to change that position. But by passing the motion where it is now, we allow the current situation to carry on.
:
Mr. Chairman, before I do that, I think we need to understand that the profitability of Canada Post is not in question here, but the ability of Canada Post to use these profits to subsidize first-class mail is. The cross-subsidization that Canada Post is allowed to do is restricted, limited; therefore, if the profits come from non-mail business, it may not be allowed to use those profits to subsidize first-class mail and vice versa.
There are some severe and strict restrictions imposed on Canada Post by the Government of Canada regarding how it can use profits driven by certain profit centres and apply them to other services it is obliged to deliver. So we have to be very careful there, because there are a number of court cases going on in that. I believe United Parcel Service has been trying to rake Canada Post over the coals on this one, because they believe their parcel division is being cross-subsidized and so forth.
So for my colleague, Mr. Bell, I think we have to be very careful here when we—as I thought he was doing—claim that Canada Post's profitability can be a reason why we don't have to worry about the universal obligation of delivering first-class mail at a similar cost across the country.
But in answer to Mr. Jean's question, here are the words of the minister as reported in Hansard of May 16. This is what I was referring to when I first spoke. I'd have to go back to the very day of the question and the answer of the minister to get the precise question and total answer, but here is what Mr. McKay says the minister gave as an answer to his question:
It is a very important subject. I have received representation not only from members opposite but also members of our political party. We are looking at the issue now and we will be taking note not only of the issue, but we will be advising the House as to what we want to do in the coming days.
Therefore, there's a commitment from the minister to advise the House as to what it is the government is intending to do with remailers. I can't quote—
:
I have three sentences left, Mr. Chair. It is, as you know, very relevant and pertinent. Over the last 15 minutes, we've spent 10 minutes listening to the Conservatives with their points of order, wasting committee time. To read three paragraphs takes about four minutes, Mr. Chair, and that is the amount of time that I needed.
So on the deferral motion, again, to avoid hasty, irresponsible action, we look to the court decision yesterday, which states:
Spring’s operations focus on the largest corporate and institutional mailers in Canada, who reside in the more densely populated and easily serviceable areas of the country. Spring does not serve the more remote areas of Canada where the costs are high in relation to the revenue generated. Unlike Canada Post, Spring is not required to bear the high cost of providing services to the more remote regions of Canada.
Mr. Chair, there it is, very clearly, in the court judgment: the relationship between universal provision for postal service and rural postal delivery.
So rather than making a hasty decision, despite the Conservatives stonewalling and refusing to hear some of the important aspects of information that has come forth since this motion was tabled, it is important for this committee to defer this discussion, get the witnesses in that Monsieur Laframboise, Mr. Bélanger, and I have been calling for, get their due diligence done, do their homework, and then we can proceed to a discussion on the motion that is honest and where we've done our due diligence.
:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I think that we must remember some important facts. I have been here for quite a few years, and I have always tried to be respectful toward Parliament, toward my colleagues and toward the procedures that we have refined over the decades as we resolved various conflicts and confrontations. All that was done to enable parliamentarians here today to work in conditions of mutual respect. You said that Mr. Julian's comments must be clearly relevant to the subject at hand. Mr. Chairman, I have a few points to make about this important issue.
There were good reasons, at the outset, for providing the option of deferring a debate or a motion. The procedure was then refined over the years. Someone might have tried to "pull a fast one", or someone might have tried to have used his majority position, or someone might have tried to have a motion adopted more or less blindly, without sufficient debate or proper information. Mr. Chairman, at such times, members must have recourse to procedures that were traditionally handed down to us, and that is what is happening here today. I do not really know why my colleagues opposite are laughing—perhaps there was an error in translation—but, Mr. Chairman they can laugh as much as they want.
We are seized with a motion that the government is trying to ram through. This motion could have very important consequences for the Canadian public. There seems to be some inability, or even worse, some unwillingness to ask for the information that we could use before making a decision.
This is the reason why motions like the one I tabled two weeks ago and that I am tabling again today have an important role in parliamentary debate.
One should not try to fool one's colleagues. Once again, there is an attempt to table a motion without giving us the information that we need in order to debate it. Those who believe, as I do, that we might be mistaken in adopting such a motion have the right to get information, to hear witnesses and to ask our researchers to provide the historical background of the issues at hand.
Let me emphasize that I have only dealt with procedure. I have not even mentioned the substantive issue. I think that everyone understands what I am driving at. As responsible parliamentarians, I think that it is our duty to hear witnesses. If we don't take the time to do so, what are the remaining alternatives available to opposition members? We can only table a motion like the one we are tabling today and defer the debate until the minister has done what he promised to do or until we get the information that we need to make the decision. Mr. Chairman, that is not the case.
As long as I am under pressure to swallow a pill that I do not want and do not know, as long as I do not have all the information that I need to understand why certain measures should be taken, I will continue behaving in this way. I think that I am behaving just as responsibly as are my colleagues opposite who want to adopt a motion immediately without any opportunity to hear witnesses from Canada Post, who are the experts in this field, and without understanding why they did not put up more a fierce opposition to remailers over so many years. I want to have answers. What would be the impact of such measures on first class mail? This is what is really at stake. If we really want to serve the Canadian public—
:
As long as people continue to interrupt us, there is no reason for us to stop.
Mr. Chairman, I hope everyone recognizes what triggered this debate in the first place. It was the fact that the government party—for some kind of reason we will explore to understand why they did it—proposed dealing with Mr. Fast's motion immediately, despite the fact that witnesses were present.
Why did they do so? For several reasons perhaps. Was it to pressure opposition members into adopting it? I must admit that it is not very dignified to engage in this type of behaviour before the people we asked to appear today. However, when the government attempts to impose this type of situation on us, we must stand our ground, even though we remain in our seats to do so. This is not the way the Canadian Parliament should function. We have rights, we have the right to be heard and we especially have the right to make informed decisions.
What explains the fascination and the urgency for the government to get a blank cheque when the minister promised over a year ago to address the issue of remailing—those were his words—in the House? He has not done so. I believe that my colleague Mr. Laframboise asked a similar question of the minister in the fall—I don't have the specific date, but I could find out—and he received a similar answer. At the time, the minister did not talk about a couple of days; but he did say "soon". It seems to me that he said it would be before the end of the year.
Because of the government's inaction, we are now faced with the following situation: our courts have stated very clearly that Canada Post's exclusive privilege had to be protected because it had the universal obligation to deliver first class mail. But for one reason or another, the minister still has not had the time to tell us about his plans, or he has not wanted to do so. Then the government members on the committee propose a motion, as did the original one presented by Mr. Fast, to amend the act in a way which would restrict, remove or amputate Canada Post's privilege, without the committee first hearing from witnesses or receiving additional information.
I must admit, Mr. Chairman, that I can neither understand nor accept this. We are accountable to our citizens. I've discussed the matter with my colleagues, and I might even discuss it with the members opposite who represent rural ridings. In light of the pressure to deal with this motion immediately, I would respond that any decision should perhaps be postponed. We will certainly not make a decision without first finding out what the minister has worked on. He said that he has worked on the issue of exclusive privilege and people who work for remailers for over a year now.
This is a very legitimate issue, Mr. Chairman, I don't deny it. However, as I said a few moments ago, there are other solutions rather than restricting, amputating or destroying the exclusive privilege of the Canada Post Corporation. As my colleague suggested, we could try to convince Canada Post to talk with the remailers to get them to work together, as was done for rural mail delivery, urban mail delivery and in other areas as well.
If the government presents a motion to rescind the exclusive privilege without discussing the consequences such as a decision would have, I cannot support it. I am therefore only doing what a responsible member of Parliament must do, that is, using the tools available to us and which were developed over decades and centuries. We can go back to the Magna Carta, if you wish. That is basically the kind of situation we are dealing with.
I could go on indefinitely, Mr. Chairman. In fact, I would like to point out that the record should show that I was willing to hear witnesses immediately, but the government members refused. That should not be forgotten.
When the time comes for the public to judge this meeting—and I expect that it will—and when both sides are accused of having violated democratic principles, let us not forget that the Conservative members of the committee were the ones who requested a change in the previously-scheduled agenda. They were also the ones who refused to give unanimous consent for hearing the witnesses. Considering their refusal, I hope that my colleagues opposite will feel somewhat embarrassed about making outrageous allegations. As a matter of fact, I would be happy to see them do so because I think that this is a substantive issue that deserves public debate.
Why should they insist on amputating or abolishing an exclusive privilege currently enjoyed by Canada Post for a very specific reason? This universal commitment should not be subject to any debate. Why should we not call witnesses from rural Canada who are probably the ones that are most threatened by this? This is a very legitimate question. I hope that when they begin to attack, as I expect them to, my colleagues will take the time to explain to the Canadian public why they want, at any price, to abolish this privilege and why they do not think that it is important for mail distribution in rural or isolated regions to continue as before.
Mr. Chairman, I think that you will agree with me that the substantive debate must be held before deciding on an issue that could have a very substantial impact on many citizens that each one of us is expected to represent.
I have said what I had to say, and let me conclude with these words, without any shame or any bitterness. I think that I know what would happen if we voted today. Beyond doubt, members will have to vote without having the facts that they need to make an informed decision.
:
Mr. Chairman, I'll try and explain to you why I am going to support Mr. Bélanger's motion.
Perhaps it's even more serious. The minister may have a reason for not tabling his report or his comments. Perhaps the act needs to be amended. Perhaps he thought he could do what he is doing by way of regulation. He didn't need to come and see us and ask for a motion like Mr. Fast's.
If that is the case, imagine the time the remailers wasted believing the government. If a legislative amendment is needed and the minister realized this and we are not aware of it because he did not submit his report, we will have to start all over again. When you're dealing with legislation, you have to hear from witnesses.
I don't know what the minister was thinking and if he came to the conclusion that a legislative amendment was necessary following the Appeal Court's decision. Regardless, I have trouble with the fact that we have to start the work all over again and that we've wasted over a year because people did not want to hear from witnesses. I'm less and less inclined to support the government, especially in delaying the real discussions, because in any event, we'll have to start them from scratch.
Mr. Bélanger's motion today is extremely important. We should wait until we get the minister's report. He has probably done his analysis. He should table this before the committee as quickly as possible. And if an amendment to the act is required, then he needs to introduce a bill. Sometimes ministers introduce draft bills for discussion purposes. If he wants there to be a discussion of this nature, then he should table a draft bill and we'll discuss it.
If that is the solution or the recommendation that he was ready to make but does not want to make because he feels trapped because he should have made it directly to the remailers— I understand the remailers. They are in a tough spot. They have jobs, and the recent decision went against them. If the ultimate solution is to amend the act, Mr. Fast's recommendation won't achieve anything. The act needs to be amended, a bill needs to be introduced, and it needs to be debated.
Legislation cannot be enacted without hearing from Canada Post's remailers. That is unthinkable. If that is the direction that the government wants to take, then they should tell us. It's quite unrealistic to think that Canada Post's exclusive privilege, which is statutory, would be bypassed and that every party would agree to have the bill fast-tracked. Just by listening to us, you can tell that we won't be giving the go-ahead to any fast track.
I'd like my colleagues to think carefully about this. Mr. Bélanger's motion is quite useful. The Conservatives should go back and see the minister and tell him that Mr. Bélanger may have been right. His report must surely be ready. He promised we'd have it, and there were speeches made about it. The parliamentary secretary knows what I'm referring to. The minister must have a reason for not submitting the report. Perhaps the findings aren't palpable in the sense that the act requires amendment. If that's the case then he should introduce draft legislation or table a report.
We're prepared to help him. I'm the one who moved the initial motion to have them appear. I'm keen to discuss this on the proviso that I have enough time to ask all the questions that need to be asked, which is something you didn't give me the opportunity to do. That's why I keep coming back to my original point. I asked you for some time. You called on me to follow the rules set by the committee. So that is what I did, and that is why I still have questions to ask before such an important change is made, because it may have an impact on rural mail. I'm a member for a rural riding. There are many rural ridings across Quebec. We want to ensure that any government decision doesn't jeopardize rural mail services. There are questions that need to be asked, and we'll see what happens after that.
If, in the recommendation or the document that the minister was supposed to produce, the only solution is to amend the act, imagine the time we wasted trying to move a motion to influence the government. All the government will do is table another bill. And if that happens, we won't have had time to hear from witnesses. We'll have to call all these witnesses back, and we'll have wasted time.
I hope the Conservatives are aware of this. I don't want to attribute blame, but you wasted the Canadian Pacific witnesses' time today. I hope that you didn't waste too much of the remailers' time. If the solution is to amend the act, we should wait for the minister's recommendations. And that's why I'm going to support Mr. Bélanger's motion.
:
Mr. Chairman, I don't for the life of me understand why the Conservatives are refusing Mr. Bélanger's motion to have the discussion deferred. It's as if they were afraid to hear from the witnesses and to know what the impact will be on the rural regions. We saw how the Conservatives tried to prevent three paragraphs of the Ontario Appeals Court decision from being read. It took me 15 minutes to read those three paragraphs because every 60 seconds the Conservatives tried to stop me from reading a decision which greatly affects Mr. Bélanger's motion. The motion is to postpone discussion on a motion and an amendment which will, in all likelihood, have an impact on the postal services in rural areas.
I don't understand the Conservatives' reaction. They refuse to take responsibility, to do their duty, and to understand the ramifications of not deferring the discussions. If the discussions were to be pushed back, there would be no major impact and the committee members representing the Conservative Party would at least have the opportunity to read the decision and understand the impact it will have on the rural services.
Postponing the discussion is a sensible and responsible option. It's our duty. Any rushed decision would be irresponsible given the Court of Appeal's ruling and would have an impact on the rural regions.
There are Conservatives members of Parliament who represent rural regions in northern Alberta and they don't seem to be sensitive to what may occur if a decision was to be made in haste. They refuse to support Mr. Bélanger's motion. His motion is sensible and will help the representatives of rural regions to do their duty. They refuse to shoulder their own responsibilities, and to review a court decision affecting the rural regions. They refuse to hear from witnesses and to have a discussion on the impact on the rural regions. That's what I don't understand, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Bélanger and Mr. Laframboise both said that they don't understand why the Conservatives are in such a rush to make a decision which may have an unforeseen impact on their own ridings. That's what I find surprising. I think it's irresponsible. Mr. Bélanger's motion is appropriate. He wants deliberations delayed until we get the minister's report, a report, I might add, we've been waiting on for almost six months.
It doesn't take six months to write a report on these issues. The minister promised we would have the report late last year. And still we don't have it. The Conservatives tell themselves that they've heard the court's decision and that this is enough to justify ignoring the impact this may have on our own ridings. They just want the motion to be passed, regardless of the consequences. It's irresponsible.
Adopting Mr. Bélanger's motion would be a responsible thing to do as it would mean postponing the discussions. I'm sure Mr. Laframboise and Mr. Carrier will also support any motion to summon the witnesses we've been waiting to hear from for a number of weeks. Had this suggestion been made, we would have heard from witnesses from Canadian Pacific and had a discussion on rail network security. All they had to do was to agree to hear from witnesses and listen to them talk about the repercussions before debating this other motion.
Mr. Bélanger is sensible. He wants the deliberations to be put off until we've got the minister's response. If I've understood correctly, the Conservatives are telling us that the minister will never do his duty. That's the only thing we can take away from their rushed and irresponsible decision. The committee has the power to decide to hear from witnesses, that is its prerogative.
The Conservatives have never made an attempt to deal with the issue of witnesses appearing. I don't understand why they haven't. Nor do I understand why they're afraid of having the three paragraphs of the decision read out as it refers specifically to service in the rural areas. They were afraid Canadians would find out about the Appeals Court's decision. Why is that? That's difficult to explain. I'd like the Conservatives to explain themselves. Why are they so afraid of having these three paragraphs read into the record from today's meeting?
I don't understand why the Conservatives are in such a rush and why they fail to see the common sense behind Mr. Bélanger's motion. Every question Mr. Bélanger, Mr. Laframboise, and Mr. Carrier asked is valid. We want to be able to discuss this issue with witnesses who understand the matter and know about the impact these decisions may have. It's normal as parliamentarians to meet this responsibility. The court's decision affects the Conservative representatives' rural regions and yet they don't want to hear of it. They don't even want the decision to be read to the committee. I just don't get it.
:
I have five points that I want to put on the record, Mr. Chair.
The first thing we're asking is that—The only thing the motion makes reference to, and is supported by some of the Liberal members and by the government, is that we keep things as they are and as they have been for the last 28 years.
The second point is that the time wasted here is by other members. I would invite all Canadians to read the record and see which members are wasting time and what they're saying, because there is, quite frankly, no logic, no reference, and no relevance to the issue itself.
The third point is that there is no report. As I have mentioned, the minister did not say he was going to provide a report to the House. He said he was going to study the issue.
The fourth issue is that we keep hearing rule, rule, rule. With respect to Mr. Laframboise, who does represent a rural riding, I am not referring to him in this comment. I'm referring to Mr. Julian, who does not have anything to do with a rural riding as far as I'm aware; he certainly does not represent any rural members such as three of the members on this side of the House do. We understand the issue with Canada Post.
Fifth, this House, these members, make the laws. The judge's job is to interpret those laws. That's why we're discussing changing the law, at least on an interim basis, so that these Canadians are not put out of work in places such as Toronto, Vancouver, and people who work in unions in different places. We want to keep the status quo, Mr. Chair. That's all we want to do. We want to protect the situation as it is, so that moms and dads and Canadian families are not put out on the street. That is what this government wants to do at this time, keep the situation as it is, in control.
:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I hope that after what we've just heard from Mr. Jean, any further questioning of relevance will be immediately discarded. Because some of these things are about as relevant as he was claiming a moment ago that others were not.
For instance, on the matter of no report, I've quoted the minister's words often enough, and I'll do so again. The last sentence there says, “but we”—as in the royal we for the government—“will be advising the House as to what we want to do in the coming days”. This was in reference to the remailing matter.
That is a commitment on behalf of the government to come back to the House, in whichever way—in a speech, in a report, in an announcement—as to what it intends to do, in the coming days, and that was a year ago. So when we hear that there is no report, that may be accurate, but there is a commitment to advise the House.
Then what happened is that we got a motion coming from a government member to amend the law—to cut, change, modify, amputate the privilege—without having had the benefit of whatever it is the government has been doing in that past year.
Furthermore, on Monday, at this very committee, we found out that the minister and the government are thinking of a review of Canada Post, and not just on the remailers, but I believe—and I'd have to verify the committee Hansard—the minister may have mentioned that the matter of remailers might be included in that review. I'd have to verify if my recollection is accurate in terms of what the minister actually specified; he listed two or three things that he would do. But the fact that the minister and the government are considering a review would delay this even longer if he's planning to use the review, with whatever format it might take, before dealing with the remailers matter.
So we've had a situation here for a year in which the government, the minister, having given a commitment to come back to the House advising the House as to what we want to do in the coming days—for a year now—and having reconfirmed that in the fall through another question in the House—And we still don't have that. And now, all of a sudden, we may be facing a review of Canada Post, which may take—We'll all agree, I would hope, that these things take months, if not years. But certainly it's not done in a matter of days or weeks, especially since the review, if it's going to happen, has not even been triggered yet.
In the meantime, my colleagues—and rightfully so—are concerned about what might happen to remailers if Canada Post insists on having its privilege respected, as the courts have ruled in the past months.
Can the government act? Yes, the government can act. Does the government need the permission or even the prompting of a committee? Hopefully it shouldn't. And it can. The minister has every ability in the law to take action to talk to Canada Post, but not by seeking this committee's endorsement for amendments to the law.
That's where this whole thing started, because the initial motion that is on the floor is Mr. Fast's motion. So let's keep that in mind when we're talking about what we're addressing here.
As a matter of fact, I might ask, as a bit of a procedural matter here, would it not have been different, Mr. Chairman, if the motion introduced by my colleague Mr. Volpe had been ruled as a substitute motion instead of an amendment? Because, in effect, that's really what it is. I don't know if we—
:
That's fair enough, Mr. Chairman.
I enjoy these points of order, because they feed the comments we can make. So keep making them, gentlemen.
If the minister truly enjoys consulting, I don't recall him telling us in any format, on this side of the House, that was his wish. He may have told his own caucus members, and that's fine. But if I were asked I would certainly say I agree, but let's not just consult members of Parliament; let's consult the people who actually deliver the mail, the remailers, and the people who receive the mail. That is the extent of what Mr. Fast's motion asks us to do. We go to the very heart of Canada Post—the universal obligation—to bind this country together. Without having done any consultation, which the minister apparently wishes, would we agree to that? I see some inherent contradictions there.
I too enjoy consulting, but real consultation, not just consultations. I will give an example of which Mr. Fast is very much aware. In another committee where we had to deal with another matter, I supported the government when they insisted we hear witnesses from all sides of the issue.
:
I would like to discuss the possibility of moving the following motion: that we move the dilatory motion, plus the other two substantive motions, to Monday for the first hour of debate; at the end of that hour, a vote will be called on all three motions—the dilatory motion, as well as the two substantive motions—and at that time the will of the committee will prevail.
If we're going to adjourn this matter and take up more committee business, I would suggest that we have some methodology for how to end this, or have some sort of exit plan and exit strategy.
My proposal, Mr. Chair, would be on that basis and a first step in moving towards that. If, in the meantime, we find some other wording—though I've not been approached with it—or any other part of the motion that would be acceptable to the other members, or we could find some other way to move forward, certainly I think it would be a reasonable compromise.
I think Mr. Bélanger is correct; I don't think anything's going to be gained by going on and on and on. But at the same time, from the government's perspective, there's a lot to be lost; that is, we will lose the agenda on Monday, we will lose the agenda on Wednesday, and we will continue to lose the agenda until this matter is dealt with.
I would suggest this would be a good and fair compromise.
:
First, I'd like to respond to Mr. Laframboise. I've found him to be very courteous and very much a gentleman in the past, but we're not playing the game; that side or a portion of that side is playing the game. We're not filibustering. We want the will of the committee to go forward. If we lose the will of the committee on the basis of the question, then we lose it and we would respect that. But the game is not being played by us. The game is being played by that side of the table. It's not being played by you, Mr. Laframboise. You've been very clear, and I respect that, and you're a man of honour. But it has been played by other people.
I find it distasteful, but this isn't a compromise position that has been put forward by the other side. The compromise is we're trying to filibuster—From our perspective, from the government side, that side is trying to filibuster, and now we're going to agree to a five-day filibuster with nothing given back on our side. The only thing we're giving is the ability for the filibuster to maintain itself for five days, with no ability to interfere in the meantime. It's the only thing we're giving up.
The reality is we're in the same position today that we're going to be in on Monday. That's not a compromise. That's not good faith, that's not trying to do anything. We're only asking for an exit strategy, whether it be that some members are not present on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, or whatever the case may be, or whether or not other members are convinced. We want a decision made. We want the opportunity to have this motion heard.
Mr. Fast, with respect, has waited for six different meetings. It's been three weeks. We're suggesting that we find a common ground while we can find an end to it and have the will of the committee come forward.
Whatever that time may be, let's find a compromise. There's no compromise position put forward by anybody on that side, because that side's trying to filibuster.
:
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.
:
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 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.
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.
:
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.
:
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.
An hon. member: Not that there's anything wrong with it.
Mr. Don Bell: 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.
I'm following up on some of the comments I made earlier. I sense there's some frustration on the part of Mr. Volpe because I believe he is acting in good faith trying to bring this to resolution.
I don't understand what he believes we will be able to achieve by simply suspending these proceedings, because we've already spent well over two hours debating this particular issue, and I think he will agree with me that at this point there's no prospect of our being able to bring this matter to closure. Now, I know he articulated some optimism in terms of over the weekend, and perhaps early next week some compromise could be reached. Quite frankly, Mr. Volpe, I don't see a compromise. As I said earlier, this is an issue that is very clearly black and white. You're either with the remailers or you're with Canada Post. There's no middle ground, there's no grey area. And I'm sure most people understand that. So the only compromise I can imagine is that we agree on some new process for bringing closure to this issue.
Quite frankly, I think now is the time for us to discuss that. Let's talk about closure. I've come to appreciate the members of the Bloc quite a bit over my year and a half on Parliament Hill simply because they make decisions that often appear to be free of ideology. They try to cooperate as a part of this committee, so I hope they don't see my remarks and my position on this as being somehow antagonistic toward them. I sense there's a much greater agenda at play with Mr. Julian. And I know Mr. Bélanger also has a lot of pressure in his riding, and I understand that, and he's been very passionate about speaking on behalf of Canada Post.
However, that doesn't get us to a resolution of this issue. I want to see this matter brought to closure. My colleague Mr. Jean has put forward what I believe is reasonable; it's fair. We're giving the committee until Wednesday at 3:30 to come up with whatever compromise they may think possible. But the bottom line is we will be here whether we continue tonight or whether we continue on Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, Saturday trying to bring this matter to closure, and ultimately I'm not sure we're ever going to change each other's minds on the merits of the issue at play here, which is the remailing issue.
I've sensed from Mr. Julian that he continues to want to drag this on and on and on, and the longer it drags on, of course, the more opportunity there is for Canada Post to step in and enforce their injunctive relief and put thousands of remailer employees out of business. He thinks that's a great idea. Mr. Chair, I don't. I feel for those people who have been employed—
:
I'll certainly do that.
If Mr. Julian is suggesting that I'm emotional, well, when it comes to the well-being of workers in Canada, especially those who presently have jobs, you bet I'm emotional. Mr. Julian may want to take the emotion out of that process. I'm not that person. I'm going to stand up for those who have employment right now. I'm going to stand up for those in the remailing business who relied for 20 years on the fact that Canada Post itself interpreted the legislation as not providing them with an exclusive privilege.
Somehow they had a smart lawyer who found this inconsistency between the French and the English and who was able to exploit it. Now we have a situation where these companies that have done business for 20 years and have relied on the Canada Post position—that they accepted competition in the marketplace—are going to have the tables turned on them, and thousands of employees in Canada are going to be losing their jobs.
Does suspending this particular meeting until Wednesday at 3:30 help us in trying to bring it to closure if in fact we don't have a firm process in place where we'll be voting on the actual motions that are on the table, which is my motion and Mr. Volpe's amendment? I think not. I think what we have to look at is the substance of what we're trying to do here.
Yes, Mr. Julian, you may disagree. And Mr. Bélanger, you obviously disagree as well.
Bringing in more and more witnesses, while other employees in the remailing industry lose their jobs, isn't the way to go about doing it. Quite frankly, I have enough information for myself to make an informed decision. I suspect you do too. You're no dumb bunny. You've done your research on this. You have spoken to the unions. I'm sure you've even spoken to the remailers. I'm just encouraging you. Do what the electors of this country asked you to do, accept the democratic will of this committee. Let's move forward. Let's make the decision one way or another.
Quite frankly, if I'm out-voted on the remailer issue, I can go home and I can say that I did my very best for the industry, I did my very best for the employees; however, the democratic process was served. Tonight it's not being served well through the filibustering that's gone on here.
I would suggest to all of us, let's put our minds together as to what kind of a process can bring this meeting and the motions to closure.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
:
Mr. Chairman, in addition to the ideas, we also have to consider how the committee operates. I have a hard time following my colleague Mr. Fast, for whom I have a lot of respect. He thinks that we had systematically filibustered the committee earlier, but that was not the case. Three colleagues, each from different parties, disagreed and shared their speaking time. Each of us spoke for five minutes. You cannot say that speaking for 10 or 15 minutes amounts to filibustering.
Opposition members are now asking you to give them until Wednesday to find common ground. The parliamentary secretary himself has suggested such a timeframe. You have already won support from the Liberals and are in a position to pass the motion. Colleagues are also telling you that if we do not reach an agreement by the start of next Wednesday's meeting, you can set a time limit for debate. It is as simple as that. I checked with the clerk: it can be done on Wednesday. At the start of the meeting, you can table a motion to limit debate to three or four hours, as you wish, with the support of your Liberal colleagues. That would be in order.
I fail to understand why you do not trust people who are reaching out to you. If we were all opposed to you I would understand, but that is not the case. Some colleagues are supporting you and proposing a solution, which you dismissed. The worst thing that can happen today is that we pass a motion to suspend debate. If that were to occur, you would have only yourself to blame. The problem is you do not control the committee. In one way or another, you have to negotiate with your colleagues.
Earlier, Mr. Bélanger talked about the fact that minority governments change. Today, the opposition is reaching out to the government, but it is not taking up the offer. I learn new things every day. Allow me to say that I am thoroughly enjoying myself with you today.
:
Mr. Chairman, I know that what we're going to do is keep this up. If we thought we had a little bit of a solution, we're going to keep this up forever.
I share the opinion that I think this matter could be dealt with by whenever we rise on Wednesday, and I don't know when that will be. I'm not sure that is a universally held position, so I apologize to my friend if I conveyed that it might be universally held. I didn't think I said that, but I thought it might be a good way to get to this.
What I'm concerned about, and I must take some umbrage with Mr. Fast on this, is that we will lose the optimism that I tried to share with everybody around the table. I realize that in the partisan world that's very easy to do.
I note some frustration on this side of the table because there was an expectation that in going forward with a suspension and working on the genesis of the motion that was proposed out of the discussion off-table we were headed in the right direction. We seem to have steered away from that a little bit because the government members want some sense of certainty.
Regrettably, that sense of certainty they're looking for increases the level of uncertainty on this side of the table. When members on this side of the table agreed with my suggestion, it was because they wanted to deal as colleagues around the table, with all sincerity, to get things done.
Since all of this is on the record, I think we have already said what everybody would want to say in order to defend a position and the interest of constituents. So what remains for us is really to think in terms of how we could work on the wording of what will be acceptable to all of us in order to defend the interests that we've all outlined.
I don't want to be the peacemaker, because peacemakers usually get the shaft in a partisan environment, but I think this is one case where there is genuine desire on the part of members on this side of the table, all three parties, to reach a positive, productive conclusion.
It strikes me as a little ironic that while we debated, before we came back, the desirability of dilatory motions, we now have the government members engaging in a debate that could be construed to be the same. My view, when I went out for a coffee and met one of the members on the government side, was that we are essentially squandering some of the time and some of the energy by continuing in this venue.
So perhaps the idea of not seeing the clock on Wednesday might be a good solution. I say “might” now, because in the course of the last hour we have muddied the waters considerably, in my view. I don't think anybody loses by having a suspension of the debate, just as I proposed it.
I don't think the government members will lose any of their positioning if we come back on Wednesday with a motion that reflects what I thought we had gotten out of off-table discussions. Speaking, if I might, purely for the Liberal members, a motion was given some consideration, and I think you know that Mr. Laframboise and Mr. Carrier—even the Bloc members—and Mr. Julian as well, came a long way. I think that's a fair assessment.
I would have thought that would have been received very warmly by the government side for this one reason, and I know I'm repeating myself.
The message to Canada Post right now, because all of these are recorded debates, is that the committee is in the process of entertaining a motion that will ensure remailers are not put to the stake. That's really what we're proposing, so if Canada Post is going to move, I would think that at the very least they would await the outcome of this committee's deliberations.
I might be dreaming, but the fact of the matter is that they would be in contempt of Parliament, because we're an extension of Parliament. If there are those around the table who think I'm dreaming in technicolor, I can say, having been a minister, that the minister gets up tomorrow morning, walks over to Canada Post, and says, “This is what you shall do.” He doesn't need this committee to get up and do that tomorrow morning.
What the committee has been asked to do is to provide greater authority to the minister's actions. Surely this is a very minor concession on the part of the government that will allow us to buttress the minister's actions with the authority of the committee, assuming that he values it. If he doesn't, we've just wasted five hours.
Mr. Brian Jean: Why would we even be discussing it, then?
Hon. Joe Volpe: Obviously if all of this is an accurate reflection of where the government could be and where the minister would be, then we can end the discussion now, accept the suspension, and say we're working on something, because we haven't done anything else; we've just suspended the discussion. We haven't adjourned. We don't have to come back to restart the engine all over again. We're just suspending the discussion as we did an hour ago, when we asked for about three minutes and went on for about 15. Let's go on for a little bit longer, and this time let's come back with something definitive.
That's all that's being asked. We don't need to put preconditions on anything, which, with all due respect, is what those amendments suggest. I know that there's a healthy skepticism and suspicion, and that's good, but we've talked this out quite a bit and eventually we're going to have to have a vote. We could have it right now; we could have it right now, but there's no need for it. All you have to do is say you accept this suspension of the discussion.
Actually, I must be a masochist, because I have actually enjoyed it to an extent. It was a good study in committee dynamics, or lack thereof.
I think Mr. Volpe hit something on the head a little while ago when he said the positions are pretty entrenched in terms of Mr. Bélanger and Mr. Julian and Mr. Fast—and, frankly, this side—about support to remailers or not. That is my sense also.
My sense is that we will come back on Wednesday, and Mr. Watson will come back on Wednesday in my place, and this will go on forever. It has no end. I would support what Mr. Volpe said just a moment ago: we could do the vote right now, because I don't think anybody's position is going to change.
For what it's worth—We've said on this side that the vote is whatever it is, and that's democracy. We accept the outcome of the democratic process. I, for one, haven't said anything on the whole thing, obviously, and maybe that's a good thing, but I just don't see anybody's position changing from what's been expressed here for the last five hours. From my point of view, let's get on with the vote and accept the results.
Mr. Volpe referred to some healthy skepticism on this side. Yes, I'm a skeptic. Although I'm new to this job, I've been around politics for a long time. I know people's positions sometimes are driven by agendas that are beyond what we might understand at face value.
I want to follow up on what Mr. Hawn said. Mr. Volpe, you said yes, we could vote now. Why don't we? Most of us don't need a whole lot more information. And what we are suggesting, what we're agreeing with, is we're saying we're prepared to put off this decision until Wednesday.
There are those on the other side of this table who may need to get more information. It's possible that Mr. Laframboise needs to go to CUPW to get some information, maybe Mr. Julian needs more information from the remailers, right? I don't know what information they're looking for, but they have an opportunity over the next few days to do so, actually go and do the work that they feel is necessary to be done.
There are a lot of us at this table who understand the issue. It does come down to jobs. It does come down to supporting businesses that have been around for 20 years, that have relied on Canada Post's interpretation on exclusive privilege. So am I skeptical? Yes, you bet I'm skeptical. Quite frankly, there's nothing you, on the other side of this table, have put on this table that would move us to accept. There's really nothing there for us, because you're not suggesting any way of bringing closure to this debate.
So if there's no prospect of closure on Wednesday, why would we postpone the inevitable? Let's deal with the issue right here and now. And you know we do so, on this side of the table, at the risk of perhaps losing support on that side. I wish we didn't have to be here debating this matter. I wish we could have dealt with this in the first hour that we debated. That's my frustration.
:
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.
:
Mr. Chairman, I'm not going to speak long this time. The next time I come up I may be moving a motion of adjournment.
I think this is a textbook case of how government members could mishandle, in a minority Parliament, an offer from the opposition for a compromise position and for some discussions. It was offered over two hours ago. Ever since then we've had a filibuster from the Conservative side, and quite frankly, Mr. Chair, they are just destroying the goodwill that they would have had a couple of hours ago. So they can keep pushing, throwing in all kinds of motions and amendments. It is seven different things now that they've been asking of the opposition, when Mr. Volpe's compromise motion was simply giving them a guarantee that next Wednesday we would be resuming the debate on this discussion, a guarantee that they would have the discussion.
Now, because there's no closure, they have necessarily some impetus, some motivation, to working with the other parties to come up with a compromise. If they had closure, they would have no impetus and no motivation to work with the other parties. So what they have is an offer for a debate, a discussion that would take place next Wednesday. They've had that offer for two hours, and they are, quite frankly, frittering it away, because I for one am getting to the point where I think we should just be adjourning.
I will consult with my colleagues. I think, quite frankly, Mr. Chair, they should be just accepting Mr. Volpe's offer and his suggestion that we proceed to vote on the suspension.
They know that next Wednesday they will come back to the debate and the discussion on the issue and there will be motivation, I think, from all four corners of this table to work on something that might be in the interests of all four parties and might meet the test of what each of the four parties is looking for.
:
I tend to agree. In the last two hours it is the first time I've been in a situation where it's the government that's resisting moving forward. That's an interesting situation.
Mr. Chair, the situation will not be the same on Wednesday. There will have been a number of days that have gone by and serious attempts to find the common ground and wording that would reflect that, with which all parties, government included, would be comfortable.
This comes not from my imagination but from the words of the only person at this table who is authorized to speak for the government. His suggestion was the one that triggered quite a realistic possibility.
Therefore, I don't accept in the least the repeated comments that things will be the same on Wednesday next week. What would have happened then is a test of the goodwill—yes, absolutely—but also a test of the capacity to work constructively, which is what we are trying to do here. If there is absolutely no intent to accept that on the part of the government, we'll find out.
I suspect that they will be surprised. I'm getting to know Mr. Fast through the spaces that we have on various committees. He should know by now that I have demonstrated flexibility in the past and that I can demonstrate that again.
To say that I can't change is not accurate, Mr. Fast. One must be careful about that.
What I have difficulty with—and I've repeated this forever—on this debate is the exclusive privilege. I do not want to get into that, because I'll be called for irrelevance and so forth, or on some subamendment to an amendment to suspend.
But be careful when you attribute intentions or designs to anyone else, because you may find that they're not quite the reality.
Thank you.
:
You're expecting me to take your word that there will actually be concrete action. I can't do that.
It is not that you're a dishonourable person. It's just that I'm dealing with six or seven other people on the other side of this table who haven't been able to see eye to eye with us on this side of the table today after four or five hours of debate. Yet you're asking me to assume this wonderful optimism, that somehow we're going to resolve this and that I'm going to be surprised at the result we have on Wednesday. I can't. I'm sorry. I'm just not at the point where I'm going to make those kinds of assumptions.
However, if you do surprise me, if we get through this and you do surprise me on Wednesday, kudos to you. But I'm not prepared to make that assumption.
Getting to the friendly amendment that my friend has reminded me of, here I'm going to go to the Bloc, because I sense that the members of the Bloc, Mr. Laframboise and Mr. Carrier, are saying that they do want to bring this to some sort of closure eventually.
You don't like the fixed times.
Mr. Jean had said one hour, or two hours, or five hours or twelve hours, whatever it was. I'm prepared to make a friendly amendment, Mr. Chair, a subamendment to Mr. Jean's.
:
Mr. Chairman, I think we have gone on now for about two and a half hours on matters that have been under discussion.
I feel compelled, for me and for members on this side—I hope I'm not offending anybody on a partisan basis by saying this—to reinforce what I said earlier on as to the position of the members on this side of the table with respect to arriving at a solution. I think it's worth repeating that members from three different parties, who have different positions and different approaches, took the initiative presented to them by the parliamentary secretary in an off-table discussion and said, “We can work with this. Let's offer them the opportunity to deal with this matter as expeditiously as possible and cooperate with them in establishing a motion that would reflect that in wording that would be legally proper, procedurally correct, and satisfying to us.” But the first two were the operative terms.
For three different parties and members of my party—who have positions that seem to be completely different—to come to this point was really quite something. So when I offered up a suspension of the debate—and I know I'm repeating this, it's at least the fourth time I've said it—it was because I felt that the motion that would come forward at the next sitting of this committee would reflect the input of the government members as well.
That, for me, would have been a motion that would have made all the others redundant and would have made everything else moot. I don't know where, in the last two and a half hours, we lost that train of thought. I hesitate to say that it was when there was an amendment to the motion, but—