Evidence of meeting #50 for Transport, Infrastructure and Communities in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
Well, if you did, I'll add it. I want to make sure the committee is clear what the question is.
Mr. Jean.
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
I don't know what Mr. Bélanger is referring to as a report that was promised. My understanding is that the minister confirmed he was going to look into the matter and make a decision on the matter. Unless he has it in front of him, I'd like to hear what exactly he says and if he refers to a report, and in what instance he's referring to it.
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
Mauril Bélanger Liberal Ottawa—Vanier, 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—
May 9th, 2007 / 4:25 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Storseth Conservative Westlock—St. Paul, AB
Sorry, I don't mean to interrupt, Mr. Bélanger. I just want to clarify for myself that this is something that Mr. McKay said that the minister—
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
Mauril Bélanger Liberal Ottawa—Vanier, ON
No, it's something Mr. McKay is quoting the minister as having said in answer to a question.
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
Mauril Bélanger Liberal Ottawa—Vanier, ON
Well, then, I'll read the entire report of Hansard of Tuesday, May 16, if you wish, Mr. Fast, so that you'll see it's not hearsay, because it's the only one I have here. I'll read this.
This is Mr. McKay speaking:
Mr. Speaker, a couple of weeks ago I asked the following question of the Minister of Transport: Mr. Speaker, the minister will know that Canada Post is pursuing injunctions against a number of small Canadian businesses that are in the business of international remailing, some of which have been in the business for 20 years. Thousands of employees will lose their jobs, hundreds of businesses will close and Canada will lose $150 million in business. What will it be: monopolistic abuses by Canada Post or vigorous competition from small business? Will the minister use his authority under the Financial Administration Act and tell Canada Post to withdraw its assault on small business?
The answer was as follows:
—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.
He goes on.
Let me quote Mr. Brian Jean.
4:25 p.m.
A voice
Excellent.
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
Mauril Bélanger Liberal Ottawa—Vanier, ON
Yes, I thought so too.
Mr. Chair, this is also on May 16, 2006, in the adjournment debate.
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
Joe Volpe Liberal Eglinton—Lawrence, ON
May I interrupt on a point of order, just to keep me on track here, please?
We are still discussing Mr. Bélanger's motion—is that it? We're not talking about my motion?
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
We're talking about a dilatory motion put forward by Mr. Bélanger that says the matter currently dealing with the past motion and amendment be deferred until such time as the minister has come forward with his report on the matter of remailers, as promised.
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
Mauril Bélanger Liberal Ottawa—Vanier, ON
So, this is Mr. Brian Jean on May 16, 2006, in response to the comments from Mr. McKay, member from Scarborough—Guildwood:
Mr. Speaker, I am wondering why the member, when he was sitting on the government side just months ago, did not do something about this issue. The Ontario Court of Appeal came out with a judgment over a year ago. I am wondering why, if he had the opportunity to do so, he did not.
I currently own three small businesses. I have run three or four others in the past, and I can tell the member that there are competing interests. We are taking this seriously because it is a very important issue.
On another point, I can assure the House that we are not going to take any lessons at all from the Liberals on how to run a business or how to run a government effectively in the best interests of Canadians. I am hopeful the member is not suggesting that we ignore the court decisions that have been rendered, including the Ontario Court of Appeal. I am certain it is not his wish that this government should ignore the courts.
I am happy to rise today on the issue of international remailing. I can assure everyone that this is a very important issue to this government. That is why we were taking some time to make an appropriate decision which will be in the best interests of Canadians, having regard to the universal postal service that all Canadians have come to love and enjoy.
Canadians receive and send mail all over the country for a mere 51¢, whether it be one block or 1,000 miles, by ferry or by other means of transportation. This government cares about rural, urban, and remote Canadian communities. That is why the minister will make a decision that is in the best interests of Canadians.
Canada's geography, low population density, outlying isolated communities, populations and climate provide, quite frankly, a larger challenge to Canada Post than other countries. In fact, I suggest that we have more challenges than any other nation's post office both in relation to delivery and also in regard to the environment, and other issues that are hot topics today.
Despite these challenges, Canada Post, an arm's-length corporation, which means in essence that we are not supposed to deal with its day-to-day operations, has a 96% on-time delivery of mail. What a great record to brag about for Canada Post.
Indeed, when we look at the entire world, Canada has one of the lowest domestic rates for any mail in the world. That speaks volumes about the quality of service. We do this without receiving any tax benefits or funding from Canadian taxpayers. This is done on a profitable basis. As a result, we have to take a look at what takes place.
Most importantly, we have a universal delivery service, which means that we cannot always deliver for 51¢. Obviously, a letter from here to Fort Chipewyan is going to cost more than 51¢ to deliver.
This is Mr. Jean speaking here, still:
As a result of that, we have to look at universal delivery, which includes what the courts have put forward as a jurisdiction that is within Canada Post's mandate. That jurisdiction means that it has the right for not only domestic mail but also international mail.
I think it's worth repeating that sentence:
That jurisdiction means that it has the right for not only domestic mail but also international mail. The court has found that, and I am certain my friend does not want this government to ignore our courts.
We are aware, and many Canadians do not know this, that these international remailers are actually subsidiaries or associated with large foreign postal services.
I have to reread this one:
We are aware, and many Canadians do not know this, that these international remailers are actually subsidiaries or associated with large foreign postal services. Indeed, these remailers employ Canadians, but Canada Post, of course, as everybody in the House knows, is the sixth largest employer of Canadians in Canada. These remailers actually collect the mail in bulk, ship it out of the country and then mail it locally at cheaper rates because there are cheaper rates available to them through foreign post offices. These—
And then the Deputy Speaker interrupted, a most eloquent interruption:
I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but his four minutes have expired. The hon. member for Scarborough—Guildwood.
Shall I continue, Mr. Chair?
4:30 p.m.
An hon. member
Shame on you, Mauril.
4:30 p.m.
Liberal
Don Bell Liberal North Vancouver, BC
Mr. Chair, whatever steps we need to take to listen to CP Rail, we should do so now. We've given over an hour to this. I do not agree. I want to go to CP Rail now.
4:30 p.m.
An hon. member
Your guy's filibustering this.
4:30 p.m.
Liberal
Don Bell Liberal North Vancouver, BC
Excuse me. I'm simply saying, Mr. Chair, we've invited these witnesses here, they've kindly deferred their time for one hour, and we should now proceed with them. Does that require a motion of some kind from me? I'm prepared to make it, whatever it is. Do you want a motion to defer it for one week? I'm not going to wait for the minister to report, but I'll agree for a deferral for a week.
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
