Evidence of meeting #101 for Government Operations and Estimates in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was investigation.
A video is available from Parliament.
1:10 p.m.
Conservative
1:10 p.m.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
I know the Standing Orders very well. I'll just say that following the rules is important to me, and the rules provide that, when debate is adjourned, either through the adjournment of debate or the adjournment of a motion, a member can, after any time has passed, move a dilatory motion to resume consideration of the original motion.
Mr. Bachrach has that right. Regardless of whether we suspend or adjourn, he can bring this back and request that the committee, at any time of his choosing—
1:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
That's not a point of order. We're going to move on.
I understand that we're going to suspend, which is fine, but before we do so, I will ask that we have unanimous consent to distribute that on SharePoint to the P9s only.
1:10 p.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
1:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
That's perfect. We have agreement for that.
Then do we have a motion to suspend?
1:10 p.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
1:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
We seem to have agreement on that.
Thank you, colleagues.
[The meeting was suspended at 1:13 p.m., Monday, February 5]
[The meeting resumed at 5:05 p.m., Wednesday, February 7]
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
Colleagues, I call this meeting back to order.
Welcome back to meeting number 101—it's déjà vu—of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates, which we're resuming today following a suspension on Monday.
If you recall, on Monday we were deliberating on a motion by Mr. Bachrach, which we're going to resume shortly. Following this, we'll move back to the ArriveCAN study.
I want to extend my personal thanks to Mr. Lafleur for coming back, especially on such short notice. I sincerely appreciate it. Thank you very much.
After that, we're going to move in camera to discuss the issue I texted a couple of you about, and then we also have a shipbuilding study and some budgets.
I'll remind you not to put earpieces next to the microphone, please, as this causes feedback and potential injury to our very valued interpreters.
We're now resuming debate on Mr. Bachrach's motion. I'll read it out:
That the committee undertake a study on the sustainability of postal service in Canada's rural and remote communities; that a minimum of 12 hours of witness testimony be dedicated to the topic; that the Committee invite the CEO of Canada Post, President of CPAA, and Minister of public services and procurement; and that the committee produce a report and table it in the House.
I'll start a speaking list on it. There's Mrs. Block, then Mr. Sousa, and then Mr. Bachrach.
The original amendment to it was defeated, so we're back to square one.
Go ahead, Mrs. Block.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
Kelly Block Conservative Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
After some discussions, I have what I believe is a friendly amendment to the original motion that was put forward by Mr. Bachrach.
I move that we replace “a minimum of 12 hours” with “at least eight hours”, and replace “sustainability” with the word “loss”.
The new motion would read:
That the committee undertake a study on the loss of postal service in Canada's rural and remote communities; that at least eight hours of witness testimony be dedicated to the topic; that the Committee invite the CEO of Canada Post, President of CPAA, and Minister of public services and procurement; and that the committee produce a report and table it in the House.
I have copies in both official languages.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
That's fine.
I will take a speaking order on the amendment.
Mr. Bachrach.
5:05 p.m.
NDP
Taylor Bachrach NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Mr. Chair, I'd just note that I agree with the spirit of the amendment and reducing the number of hours.
We may get to the end of the witness testimony and feel the committee wishes to either expand the scope of the inquiry or hear additional witnesses on the topic of rural and remote communities. I'm happy with this as a starting place, as I've indicated to Mrs. Block. I'm happy to vote in support of the amendment.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
I appreciate that, and I appreciate the time spent cleaning up timing in the language that came up before.
Does anyone wish to speak on the amendment?
Mr. Sousa.
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
Charles Sousa Liberal Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON
How does that work? Do we have to vote on this amendment?
I'm just trying to understand the process.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
What we'll do is vote on the amendment by Mrs. Block, which is just changing it to “at least eight hours” and changing some minor wording. Then we're back on the original debate on the modified motion, and we could entertain yours.
Mr. Bains.
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
Parm Bains Liberal Steveston—Richmond East, BC
I'm wondering whether we can still keep “a study on the loss and sustainability”, because just studying the loss limits the scope. What about the sustainability of it?
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
I understand what you're saying.
I'll be honest. I'm not sure that kind of wording would limit our ability to do the whole study, just so you know.
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
To do so, we'd have to defeat this amendment, and then include it.
Mr. Bachrach.
5:10 p.m.
NDP
Taylor Bachrach NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Through you to Mr. Bains, I think the goal here is to find wording that has a shared understanding around the table. There was some concern about the word “sustainability” because it's a word that now means many things to many people. It may lead us down paths that weren't the original intention of the study.
Really, what we're talking about is the viability and continuation of postal service in rural and remote communities. The opposite of that is loss. What we've seen over the years, since the 2014 moratorium, isn't more post offices being opened in rural and remote communities. We've seen post offices go from being proper Canada Post, postmaster-provided post offices to a franchise model that involves contracting out to other businesses and post office boxes on the side of the road. That's something many rural and remote residents are concerned about. It's certainly something the union of postmasters and assistants is concerned about.
I'm hoping this will be the focus. It's really about service levels. How do we maintain service levels for rural residents? I think there's a lot that we can shoehorn into that scope.
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
Majid Jowhari Liberal Richmond Hill, ON
I think the use of “loss” will limit it, although it may represent the spirit. I think it limits it because, the way I looked at it when we were talking about sustainability was that we were talking about the viability of Canada Post to continue serving Canadians, to provide services and also be a viable business.
If we're talking about sustainability, we can say “sustainability of services”. If we're talking about the viability of this as a business while ensuring that all those services are provided, I think that was the spirit Mr. Bachrach was talking about, at least as I understood in my conversation with him. That's definitely the premise on which our side has prepared the amendment.
If that's not the case, I would ask for a one- or two-minute recess so we can realign on our side, because Mrs. Block's moving a motion and Mr. Bachrach's supporting it kind of throws us off a bit.
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
We can suspend. You can share your motion with everyone else, and maybe we can come to a conclusion on that one that could be agreed to.
Would we consider a quick suspension to see if everyone is on board to have Mr. Sousa's amendment and if it includes everything suitable to all?
5:10 p.m.
NDP
Taylor Bachrach NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Can I just speak very briefly to what Mr. Jowhari just mentioned?