Government Operations Committee on Feb. 5th, 2024

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Thanks.

Before we go to Mr. Jowhari, perhaps, so that we can move ahead with this, we could ask the minister, as we have in the past, when he comes to discuss the estimates, to stay for an extended time. I can hear Mr. Jowhari whispering. I hope he doesn't steal my idea. Perhaps we could do the supplementary estimates and then the main estimates, and he could commit to an extra 25-minute round or 20-minute round, as he did last time. Perhaps we could have that as a compromise.

Mr. Jowhari, go ahead.

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

That's exactly what I wanted to say, with a little bit of a caveat. Remember that we're going to have the minister here twice before we actually start this study, on both the main estimates and other things. Once we get to a point where we have a pretty good understanding of what the issues are and what the challenges are and what the strategies are, I think that would be an appropriate time for us to call the minister to come in. Then we could clearly say that this is what we heard; we understand that these are the challenges, and we also understand that these other recommendations have been made to him, for example, and we could ask what the government is going to do. That's rather than coming in right off the bat and probably setting the direction that we are assessing it, evaluating it and looking at it. That will be the latter part of the process, definitely. As for the other part, that's already covered. We could call other witnesses, including the minister. The minister would fall under “other witnesses”.

I'm saying that before we get this study done—even to the last meeting, at which we were going to call the minister—we're going to have opportunities to call the minister. Whether we're going to go to an extra round of 25 minutes every time we have a minister coming in and talk specifically about Canada Post, I'm not 100% sure, but I can tell you that during those hours when the minister and staff and the department show up here, we will have an opportunity to ask any questions we want, and we've done that in the past.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Thank you, Mr. Jowhari.

That is the point. We can certainly add a motion to call the minister at any time we choose to.

Mr. Sousa, go ahead.

[Charles Sousa, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

I'm just trying to get clarity here. The way the motion has been amended allows for the minister to come at our discretion. He's going to be here for estimates and other matters. I'm not certain we will need to extend his stay as a result of those issues. I would leave it as is and proceed forward, Mr. Chair.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

At the risk of belabouring this—

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

There is no risk.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

—I think a compromise that our chair was proposing was that, instead of squabbling over whether or not the minister is included in the motion, we should invite him to appear for an extra 20 minutes when he appears for estimates and dedicate a portion of our questioning of him to this specific topic and include his answers in the body of the report. That would be my understanding of what was proposed. Maybe we won't come to a consensus or compromise, in which case, because I like the timeline that's laid out here, I will not vote against the amendment the Liberals have put forward, but I would expect that near the end of the study, we would invite the minister to answer our questions about Canada Post.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Thanks.

Next we have Mr. Jowhari and then Mrs. Vignola.

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

I'll go back to the same point. When the minister shows up for the estimates in May and we haven't even gotten halfway through this study, we are going to question the minister, and we're going to get the same answers that we would get if we had the minister here tomorrow. So, specifically calling for half an hour or one round of questions, 25 minutes or 24 minutes, asking the minister questions when we haven't done this study, is not going to be the right thing to do.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Now we have Mrs. Vignola and then Mr. Lawrence.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

We're going to invite the minister to appear on the main estimates and the supplementary estimates. I understand what my colleague just said about the proposal to add 25 minutes to the meeting, which was that we'll be about halfway through the study that's been requested. It's true that we do have to consider that. Personally, I think that, if we invite the minister to come and discuss the estimates and then we ask him to appear to discuss Canada Post, that'll be two hours of testimony instead of an hour and a half. That's how it adds up for me.

Certainly, if we're not very far along in the Canada Post study, all the minister will do is remind us that Canada Post is a Crown corporation that's completely independent of the government. In that sense, we may not get any answers.

I know that ministers' time is a precious and limited resource, and I want that to be taken into account as well. Testifying here is part of their job. That said, if the minister is already coming for two hours and a third hour is added, maybe there's a way to make the most efficient possible use of his time with us. If he has to be here for an hour and we turn that hour into an hour and a half, that will save him a little time. That's something to consider as well.

Instead of adding an hour, let's consider the possibility of having the minister stay for an extra half hour when he's here to discuss another topic. That seems like a reasonable and very appropriate compromise, in my humble opinion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Thanks.

Do you need me to read back where we are with Mrs. Vignola's amendment? Okay.

It reads:

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—

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

I believe the wording around “loss” was missed in what you just read into the record.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Oh, I'm sorry. The clerk is going to update it. Thanks, Mr. Bachrach.

We'll try again:

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, the deputy minister of public services and procurement, and any other witnesses the Committee deems necessary; that the committee establish a schedule for this study no later than February 28, 2024; that the committee produce a report and table it in the House before June 7, 2024; and that pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee request a government response.

Is everything fine with that? We have thumbs-up. That's wonderful.

(Amendment as amended agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Motion as amended agreed to)

It is so passed. Thank you, Mr. Bachrach; Mrs. Block; Mrs. Vignola, for your corrections; and Mr. Sousa, for the amendment and for providing it in French.

Mr. Bachrach.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

I was just saying thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Thanks.

We are now on ArriveCAN and Mr. Lafleur....

I'm sorry. Give me two seconds.

[Charles Sousa, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

Mr. Chair—

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Just shout it out. Go ahead.

[Charles Sousa, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

I apologize.

We on this side of the House would like to dismiss the witness.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

That's not the proper format.

[Charles Sousa, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

I'd like to dismiss the witness in the proper format.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Charles Sousa, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

I'd like to move a motion to dismiss the witness.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

As such, that becomes a debatable motion, Mr. Sousa.

On my speaking list I have Mr. Brock, Mr. Jowhari, Ms. Block and Mr. Sousa.

Mr. Brock, go ahead.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

I'm rather surprised at Mr. Sousa's suggestion that we relieve the witness. Without explanation from him, it may be because of the hour. It's 5:40 now, and this meeting was supposed to start at 3:30. I would have thought, though, that there would have been some communication to the witness that our votes, in fact, seven votes, delayed the start of this meeting.

I would have hoped as well that there would have been some communication to the witness in advance of today's date that he was not expected to provide any testimony and answer any questions right at the start of the meeting, because of committee business. There was no indication as to how long that committee business would take, but I believe the witness had committed himself to one further hour of Q and A.

These are relevant issues with this particular witness. We did not finish the full two-hour allotment that we had because of numerous points of order and discussions with respect to material that was not in the possession of regular members of this committee. That has since been rectified, as I understand it. They've had well over 24 hours to receive the material.

We are ready to proceed. Unless Mr. Sousa provides some justifiable reason as to why this witness ought to be excused, I would suggest that we have the witness here and that, if he's able to stay for the one full hour, we use that time accordingly.

Thank you.