Transport Committee on May 4th, 2006

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Storseth, on a point of order.

[Brian Storseth, Conservative, Westlock—St. Paul, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm not sure I believe that I'm actually doing this and sticking up for Mr. Volpe here.

I think there must be something wrong with my translation, Mr. Chair, because I continuously hear Mr. Bélanger refer to the government doing this and our side doing this.

We are debating a motion put forward by the honourable opposition critic. I only want to clarify that and put it on the record, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

We're actually debating a motion put forward by Monsieur Bélanger. It's not a point of order.

Mr. Bélanger.

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

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.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Laframboise.

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

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.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Julian.

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

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.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Bell.

[Don Bell, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

I've been listening to the debate, and it doesn't seem to have changed much.

My concern is that if we—I think that we should get the minister's report—

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

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, there is no report. We've had referrals from the other side: report, report. There is no referral of a report. The issue is going to be looked at. There's nothing about a report. It's about getting back to the House. There are many different ways to get back to the House. One is a report. There is no reference to a report.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

It is not a point of order, but it's—

[Don Bell, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

My point is, whether it's a report or whether it's comment, or whatever, that followed suit from the comments that were apparently made by the minister, my concern in delaying it is if we don't get the commitment, nothing is going to happen in the meantime. It's like seeking to have a decision considered for somebody who's sitting on death row. If you don't actually hold off the action, the person will be executed while you're going through the process. That's my concern.

I've read the e-mail that came from somebody in CUPW to provide information, Katherine Steinhoff, which I presume everybody has. It says:

Please also note that Spring, which is a very large business—can appeal this decision. Therefore, no one is really at risk in the near future. There is time to investigate this issue.

Rather than having Spring go through another appeal they've obviously lost here, my preference would be to have Canada Post know the minister's position that no action be taken while there is an opportunity for a third discussion. If that's not going to happen, then I'm against the delay. But if we can get that, then I would like to see the minister tell us what his thoughts are on this. If there is a position that's coming out of this from the previous discussion, I think we should know that and resolve this issue.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Jean, and Mr. Bélanger after.

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

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.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Monsieur Bélanger.

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

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—

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, we're talking about something that's already a moot point. We've moved on. It's totally irrelevant to our discussion here.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you, Mr. Fast.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Chair, if I could just finish that thought, Mr. Bélanger had referred to his concern that somehow the minister wasn't acting. In fact, those who know the minister know he's someone who enjoys consulting before making important decisions. He has indicated to us, as members of the government, that he wants to know the views of this committee. That is the process we're going through right now at this committee.

Mr. Chair, for Mr. Bélanger's clarification, this is all about consulting with the very members that Mr. Bélanger seems to be criticizing.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Fast, thank you. It's not a point of order. It is a point of debate—

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

I like these points of order.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

—and I will advise Monsieur Bélanger that it's not the position of the chair to comment on what-ifs.

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

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.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Point of order, Mr. Chair. Is this relevant to the motion to defer? We have a dilatory motion on the table and we're wandering way off.