Government Operations Committee on Nov. 2nd, 2016

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

It's always great to see another McCauley, though.

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Lukiwski]

We'll close with Mr. Whalen, for five minutes, please.

[Nick Whalen, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

We're entering maybe the last couple of hours of testimony in this Canada Post study we're undertaking, so thank you all very much for coming and sticking it out with us.

We had an opportunity when we were in Scanterbury to drive by and visit one of the postal outlets. It's a very modest structure about the size of a woodshed. The people in the community told us that there's not even really enough space to store the parcels that are there and at the same time have two people retrieve parcels. I think one person even said that he had to go outside to change his mind when he visited.

Ms. McAuley, with respect to these rural post offices where the concept is to turn them into hubs, how many of them really have sufficient size to both serve the core function of parcel and mail delivery and offer any other services at all in the physical size that these facilities operate in?

[Brenda McAuley]

That's a really fair question. We have 1,531 group post offices. That means that the postmaster provides the premises. Often they will retrofit their home to have a post office in it, or it will be in the garage, but there are a lot more criteria now around it to make it suitable. Obviously, all those post offices won't be suitable. However, we do have 3,260 offices that our members operate, and I'm sure probably 1,800 of them are suitable locations that have suitable parking.

[Nick Whalen, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

With respect to the ones that are operated out of people's homes, should we investigate making those hubs? Isn't that almost like a franchise model in itself? You're providing this person with extra business opportunities, but they are running them out of their own home. It's not a corporate-owned location.

Isn't that like a pseudo-franchise, if we were to expand on that model? How is that different from franchising?

[Brenda McAuley]

I'll tell you how it differs from franchises. It's supported by the big picture. It's supported by the corporation. There's a network. It's part of that network.

When we did a study, the difference was that franchises aren't supported very well by the corporation. What we often saw when we studied all those communities that had a post office was that it closed, they put in a franchise, and because that franchise wasn't supported, it wasn't sustainable. So that franchise closed, and in essence, they were left with nothing.

[Nick Whalen, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

I see a bit—and I just want your perspective—that even with the rural moratorium in place, the severe reduction in hours and quality of service and convenience of service at rural post offices was really akin to breaching the rural moratorium. How do you feel about that type of statement? Do you think, no, the services that are provided with 15 hours a week are still sufficient to serve the communities?

[Brenda McAuley]

It all depends on the community. If the community has 100 people and the community is good with that and it works for that community and the mayor doesn't object, then if that works, it works. Every community is unique.

[Nick Whalen, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

Thank you.

Very quickly, for each of the unions, how do you feel about the notion of having a postal regulator to oversee some of the higher-end complaints that might exist between the union and the management and also between pricing of mail delivery and the union? It would try to externalize some of the big issues facing postal delivery and parcel delivery in Canada and have an expert third party regulator oversee the activity in the marketplace.

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Lukiwski]

I'm afraid it will have to be a very brief answer, like a yes or no or perhaps, in each case.

[François Paradis]

It's a quick answer and I can't really get into it. Based on what I've read in the discussion paper, I'd have to say no; there are some concerns with not properly evaluating risks. On what that would mean, I'd say no, but I'd want a review of the board of directors at Canada Post, their composition and basically the relationship between the government, the board of directors, and the rest of the governance structure.

[Daniel Maheux]

If it's a fair playing field for everybody, meaning all the postal or parcel providers and not just Canada Post, that's something that's perhaps worth exploring. Otherwise it's not worth it.

[Guy Dubois]

It's worth the time to explore. We have some concerns, but it's worth the time to sit down and talk about it.

[Nick Whalen, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Lukiwski]

To all our witnesses, thank you very much for once again appearing before us. Your testimony has been helpful, and we hopefully will be getting around to drafting a report on this within the next couple of weeks or so. Obviously I know you'll be very interested in seeing the results of that report when we table it in Parliament.

The witnesses are excused.

I would ask our committee members to stay at the table just for a couple of moments. We have about six minutes before the bells start ringing.

Thank you, witnesses.

We are still public. I just want you to be aware of that.

We have a couple of issues that we need to deal with. Madam Trudel and Mr. Whalen both raised one, and that is to get our hands on the Canada Post study on postal banking in its unredacted form. Canada Post certainly is willing to accommodate; however there are a few conditions attached to that, which is natural, and quite in order, by the way, because of the commercially sensitive nature of a lot of the information contained in that report.

The second challenge is that the report itself is quite lengthy. It's about 800 pages. We'll have to deal with this in an in camera session. The suggestion, which again is in order with the compendium of procedure of the House of Commons, is that the report be delivered at an in camera session to all members. Discussion can ensue from there, but once we leave, the reports are turned back to Canada Post.

On the timing of that, I don't know how long...obviously, it's a lengthy report. You'll see it for the first time and then go into the discussions after that. If we're looking at a meeting, we won't be able to do that now for any length of time unless we want to schedule an entire committee meeting for that purpose. If that's the case, the earliest opportunity would be the Monday we return from our Remembrance Day constituency week, which would be November 14. I'm just wondering whether or not you would like that date.

Nick.

[Nick Whalen, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

One issue I have with only having it during a committee meeting is that it's 800 pages. In previous in camera discussions we had, other things have been discussed, but I would like the document to be made available in a data room, where people can go at their leisure over the course of a couple of days to familiarize themselves with the document, if that's possible, and then have a meeting based on their review of it, which wouldn't interfere with the existing schedule.

All the contents of the report are confidential, so I don't think our seeing it during the drafting of the report is a problem, but it will affect our interpretation of the testimony that we've received to date. I think it's important that we see it, but there also has to be a meaningful opportunity to review it. Meeting for two hours on an 800-page document is not meaningful.

I will draw the committee's attention to our right to reject any of these suggestions, if we choose to do so. We could simply say that is fine, well and good, but we'd mentioned our desire to see this document in early September. Here we are now, and they're still trying to negotiate conditions that we do not need to accept. We can just have the document delivered up forthwith.

I think we can accommodate an opportunity whereby the document is made available in the Centre Block, in a room that we can visit at our leisure over the course of a couple of days and take such necessary steps to review the 800 pages in a sufficient window, and then have a meeting after that time, if we so choose. It may be that we do not need to meet after having had an opportunity to meaningfully review the document. That remains to be seen.

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Lukiwski]

I will consult and, once again, review all of the protections, I guess, that Canada Post has and our rights versus their rights, to determine exactly if what you're suggesting is within the art of the possible.

Mr. Whelan, it very well may be, but your point is well taken on one level, and that is the fact that the report itself won't probably have any bearing, as we go forward on the drafting instructions and the delivery of the report. I don't want to have it delay the start of drafting the report.

We have the opportunity to see this, but it won't be until we get back from the break. I'll certainly examine the fact of whether or not.... We'll speak with Canada Post. We'll also consult with the procedural aspects of our rights and the rights of Canada Post, and we'll see what we can do to accommodate what you're suggesting. I understand what you're saying, Nick, and I understand the document you're referring to.

Go ahead, Erin.

[Erin Weir, NDP, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Chair, when you suggested the document would only be available to committee members in a meeting, I just want to clarify whether that's just regular members of the committee. I would certainly make the case that Karine, as the NDP's Canada Post critic, should also have access to the document.

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Lukiwski]

Yes, the rights and privileges of members of Parliament are certainly respected in that, and certainly Ms. Trudel would have that opportunity as well.

[Erin Weir, NDP, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

I just wanted to confirm that.

I guess I just also wanted to make the point that we've had a pretty good process to receive the confidential reports prepared by the task force, where we had to sign out the documents and we got separately marked copies to prevent leaks. I'm not sure why that process wouldn't work for Canada Post's internal report on postal banking. I'm unclear on why that document would require some higher level of protection or secrecy.

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Lukiwski]

That's why I had mentioned to Mr. Whelan that I'll be examining exactly what is within the art of the possible and what our rights and privileges are in that respect.

Go ahead, Mr. Whelan.

[Nick Whalen, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

I would just like to quote from page 52 of the The Power of Parliamentary Houses to Send for Persons, Papers & Records by Derek Lee. The top couple of paragraphs read:

The only occasion when the Canadian House of Commons imprisoned a person was in 1913, in respect of an individual (Mr. Connolly) who refused to provide documents ordered by a committee....

And it's been quoted here:

[Mr. Connolly's counsel] read a statement...explaining that the books also contained private business matters unrelated to the concerns of the committee, which if made public would prejudice other clients of Mr. Connolly. The House ordered the books to be produced and delivered to the custody of the Clerk of the House.... A House or committee need not simply demand a copy of a document, or the production of the original by the witnesses upon examination; it may also demand “control” over the document.

This is open to us. I respect the right and the desire of Canada Post to keep things as tight as possible, but at this stage, in order to preserve the legitimacy of our report, we need access to these documents, and I can't stress that any more strongly than I have.

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Lukiwski]

You've stressed it very strongly, and I agree. What Mr. Lee's analysis does not do is address the right of confidentiality. Right of access is one thing; confidentiality is another. And that's what I'll be examining, to see exactly where the twain shall meet.

Go ahead, Mr. Drouin.

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

I just want to put on the record that I'm not happy, even though I look happy. Madame Trudel put this motion when I was here, and you guys, all my colleagues, went away, and we still don't have this issue resolved.

I think that shows a lack of respect for this committee, and I just wanted to state that on the record.

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Lukiwski]

Thank you.

Are there any other comments?

The second point is that as far as timing for tomorrow's meetings goes, we will convene at 10 a.m. in room 237-D. We will hear from the Canadian Union of Postal Workers at that time, followed by the task force. Then at 12 noon, in the same room, we'll switch disciplines, and go to listening to Mr. Brison, representatives from the Department of Finance, and PCO on the estimates process, and then we will have to change rooms from 1 o'clock to 2 o'clock to deal with the drafting instructions for our report on Canada Post. We will also at that time discuss both the issues we had discussed at the last meeting, the analysts' suggestion regarding the outline, Mr. Whalen's suggestion, and any suggestions from other members of the committee. That will be in camera but that will be in room 253-D.

So, again, we'll get the guide map out for you tomorrow but we'll just have to change rooms for that last portion of our meeting.

Mr. Clarke.