Finance Committee on Feb. 23rd, 2026

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Bill C-15 proposes to repeal provisions of the Canada Post Corporation Act that currently provide reduced-rate postage for library materials mailed between libraries or to library users, as well as the postage-free mailing of books and other materials for the use of people who are blind.

The measures targeted for repeal were unanimously adopted by Parliament when Bill C-321 passed in 2013. That was 13 years ago. It was introduced by Conservative MP Merv Tweed, with all-party recognition that equitable access to reading is a national priority.

Libraries across Canada have been clear that repealing these measures will have a negative impact. Libraries across Canada rely on affordable postage rates to operate robust interlibrary loan networks so that a person in a small town or remote community can access the same depth of collection as someone living near a major research library in an urban centre.

Homebound readers, seniors, people with disabilities and residents of indigenous, remote and minority-language communities often depend upon materials delivered by mail from public and academic libraries.

Finally, people who are blind or have low vision rely on the free post program to receive accessible formats such as Braille, audio, and large-print materials. Eliminating the statutory guarantee would threaten their ability to receive reading materials at all.

I would urge my colleagues to vote against this. Other than a pure pecuniary impact, I really can't see how it could possibly be good policy.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

Thank you, Mr. Davies.

Seeing no further comments, shall clause 195 carry?

(Clause 195 agreed to on division)

(On clause 196)

We are moving on to clause 196.

Mr. Fragiskatos, go ahead.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London Centre, ON]

I have an amendment to clause 196, Madam Chair, under “Exception — fair and reasonable rates”.

I move that Bill C-15, in clause 196, be amended by adding after line 30 on page 296 the following:

(3.1) The Corporation must provide for

(a) the transmission by post, free of postage, of letters, books, tapes, records and other similar material for the use of the blind; and

(b) a reduced rate of postage for library materials lent by a library to a borrower, including by means of an interlibrary loan.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

Monsieur Garon, go ahead.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I thank the government for proposing this amendment, which is important to us and to the regions.

I grew up in a remote part of northern Quebec. We had a small community library. The closest big library was in Val-d'Or, almost 200 kilometres away. Thanks to Réseau BIBLIO, we could order a book we didn't have. Reading is an integral part of education. Actually, we now know that reading among young boys is one of the best ways to predict whether they will have the opportunity to go to university. This really is very important.

Obviously, I'm in favour of the amendment, but there's one thing that worries me in general. I asked the minister about this when he was here at our committee, and that's when I realized that the government was totally unaware of the consequences of its decision to completely exempt Canada Post from its obligation to submit its fee schedule to cabinet. He did not know that he was removing all the sections of the act that protect blind people. In small communities, there are even fewer books in Braille than there are books in French. The government had no idea what it was doing. When the minister came and I asked him questions about it, he was so surprised that he said—you know me; I'm paraphrasing—he couldn't believe that there wasn't already an exception in there, because it didn't make sense.

Earlier, we were discussing the high-speed rail network, and I'm seeing the same approach here. That's what you get when you do sloppy, overly hasty work. When I was young and had to bring things up from the basement to the main floor, sometimes I ended up making the job harder than necessary because I tried to do it too fast and dropped things all over the place. My parents told me I had done things the lazy way. Well, these clauses are the lazy way.

This budget was tabled in the fall rather than the spring. I've said that several times, but I'm entitled to say it again because this is a new debate. Three or four weeks before the budget was tabled, the minister still didn't know if he was going to table one. He didn't want to table one, and then he upended the budget cycle. When you spend your time on press releases instead of preparing a budget—by the way, I'm saying this with all due respect for public servants—you end up making mistakes like that.

We found the mistake and reported it. Libraries figured it out. This makes me wonder if other mistakes resulting in injustice slipped into the budget because the work was done too quickly.

I have to say that it's not the government officials' fault. The room is full of them, so I want to acknowledge them, thank them for being here and tell them, from the bottom of my heart, that they are very competent and doing outstanding work. However, no one is expected to do the impossible. If the government had tabled a normal budget in the spring, these competent people would have had time to do their work and conduct consultations, and things like that would not have happened.

Anyway, I want to emphasize the fact that the government listened to people, including Bloc Québécois members. We were the ones who asked the minister about this. To anyone still wondering what the purpose of the Bloc Québécois is, I would say this: When people in the regions of Quebec, especially young boys, can order a book and read, they'll remember that this is another purpose the Bloc Québécois serves.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

Thank you, Mr. Garon.

I don't see any other speakers on G‑3.

(Amendment agreed to)

(Clause 196 as amended agreed to)

(On clause 197)

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

Mr. Garon, are you moving BQ‑6?

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Yes. This amendment is in the same vein. It would remove from the list of paragraphs repealed by the bill those that provide for special pricing by Canada Post for library materials and items for the blind. It is therefore entirely consistent with amendment G‑3.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

If BQ‑6 were to pass, it could create an inconsistency in the bill.

Shall BQ-6 carry?

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Before we vote, would it be possible for an official or the clerks to reassure me that the adoption of G‑3 guarantees that everything proposed by BQ‑6 will also be applied? It's important; it has more to do with the content. I don't think the vote will be for nothing, after all.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

Absolutely.

Are there any Canada Post people in the room? We'll let them come to the table and state their names.

We have Ms. Clow and Mr. Bourevitch.

Mr. Garon, do you have a specific question for them?

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

As I understand it, there may be a consistency issue, but the adoption of G‑3 does not make BQ‑6 out of order. For example, BQ‑6 may add things that would otherwise be missing.

If I understand correctly, G‑3 won't strike the part of the bill that removes the paragraphs about library materials. I know that this kind of verification is usually done at report stage. However, I wonder if it would be best to simply adopt BQ‑6 and then let the government deal with the consistency issue. I know it's done that way sometimes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

Could the departmental officials comment on that?

[Eugene Gourevitch, Director, Postal Affairs, Department of Public Works and Government Services]

The position of the officials would be that the government amendment is actually stronger. It codifies the protection of blind material and library material in the law. The regulatory provisions would no longer be required, essentially. The regulatory provisions would in a sense create additional red tape and less flexibility around additional library materials that could be sent at reduced rates of postage, for example. Similarly for the material for the blind, given the new legislative requirement to maintain the rates, there would be no reason to maintain the regulatory-making provision or power that currently exists.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

Thank you.

Are there any further questions?

Mr. Garon, you have the floor.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

I don't know; I'm not convinced. We're being told that amendment G‑3 removes the provisions on library materials from the bill and that preferential rates will be reinstated. However, when it comes to the purpose of the bill, I'm sorry, but I don't agree that it creates an administrative burden; I don't agree with that definition. The purpose of the bill is to ensure that, for certain groups of people, there is still government oversight. Although Canada Post is, in a way, a private corporation, and we want it to be more autonomous, it has a mandate from the government to provide a public service that, from a purely financial point of view, will not necessarily be profitable. I'm not sure that, as elected officials, we want to let Canada Post define that, given that its mandate will eventually be reviewed.

I'm therefore suggesting that we adopt BQ‑6. Then we'll see what the government has to say about consistency. That will be done in the House, and we can do it on a regular basis. I don't think adopting G‑3 invalidates BQ‑6. They both do the same thing. We will work on consistency during votes in the House. I think that would be the right way to do it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

Thank you, Mr. Garon.

Are there any other questions for the departmental officials? It doesn't look like it.

Is it the will of the committee to adopt BQ‑6?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

NDP-1 was identical to BQ-6, so we won't be able to introduce it.

BQ‑7 cannot be moved because BQ‑6 was defeated.

Shall clause 197 carry?

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

I suppose BQ‑8 cannot be moved either.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

We're not there yet. It's coming.

(Clause 197 agreed to on division)

(On clause 198)

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

Mr. Garon, you may now move BQ‑8.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Basically, this amendment is also about libraries. The government wanted to remove the 10-year review of library rates. The current Canada Post Corporation Act says, “Five years after this Act comes into force, and every ten years thereafter, the Minister must have a review undertaken of the definition library material”, and so on. This is another definition issue. It simply removed the review of the rates set out in the act.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

Are there any questions or comments? It doesn't look like it.

Is it the will of the committee to adopt BQ‑8?

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

Is it carried on division? I'm sorry. It was rejected. Clause 198....