Government Operations Committee on Feb. 5th, 2024

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

It would be on the amendment.

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

It's on the amendment of Mrs. Block. I think the issue here is whether we state it in an aspirational way, where we're stating the positive future we want to create, or whether we use the motion to express concern about the trend that we've observed, which is a negative one. I think the motion as amended would do the latter, express concern about the loss of postal service.

Certainly the discussion of long-term viability and sustainability fits in the context of the loss we've seen. We want to reverse those losses. We want to see rural communities receive better service.

I'll leave it at that. It seems like maybe that's the distinction here on the two sides of the table.

As I said before, I support the amendment that's been put forward.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Thanks, Mr. Bachrach.

It is a good point, because the long-term sustainability is written into the Canada Post Act.

We'll suspend.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

We're back from suspension.

Are we okay to move to a vote on this?

(Amendment agreed to)

We'll consider the amendment passed.

Mr. Sousa, do you have something for us?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

To piggyback on the amendment that Mrs. Block put forward, I would suggest including the following words. I believe that this is being distributed now.

Basically, Mrs. Block amended two items there, “the loss of postal service“ and “at least eight hours”, so we'll go with the eight hours instead of 12. If I were to continue reading, I would read as follows: “that the Committee invite the CEO of Canada Post, President of CPAA, and deputy Minister of public services and procurement”, as opposed to the minister. I would just add “deputy” in front of “minister”. I would then add the following: “That the committee establish a schedule for this study no later than February 28, 2024”. Then I agree with “that the committee produce a report and table it in the House”, but I would continue and add “before June 7, 2024, and that, pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee request a government response.”

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Thanks.

The email has gone out to everyone in both official languages.

I see Mrs. Vignola.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I agree with the wording. As a committee, we have to be effective and we always strive for that. You may agree or disagree, but I also think the wording really emphasizes the witnesses, whereas we usually have a brief reference to the committee being able to invite all the witnesses it deems necessary. There is no such reference, however, so it gives the impression that we will only hear from three witnesses when there are certain things that warrant our consideration.

By way of a subamendment, therefore, I would put a comma after the word “Procurement” in Mr. Sousa's amendment, and add: “as well as any other witness the committee deems necessary”. That way we would not be limited to just three witnesses, even though they are important ones. There are no doubt other people who might wish to state their views, views that are equally important, during the eight hours we have agreed upon.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Thank you. That is a very good point. It usually doesn't say “and with other appropriate witnesses”.

We'll start a speaking list on Mrs. Vignola's subamendment to the amendment. Or are we comfortable with the changes she has suggested? It seems to be just one comma, I think I heard, and changing it so that we could call other witnesses as deemed appropriate.

Would you repeat it, Mrs. Vignola?

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

After “Procurement", we would add a comma, then “and any other witnesses the committee deems necessary”.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

It seems pretty straightforward.

Okay. I'm sensing that we have approval for this.

(Subamendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Wonderful. It is so amended.

We are now back to discussing the amended amendment, which is Mr. Sousa's, but is including other witnesses, basically.

I have Mrs. Vignola.

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

This will be quick.

The same error appears in Mrs. Block's amendment and in Mr. Sousa's subamendment. It's a grammatical error involving conjugation of the verb and the past participle, something that bedevils virtually all francophones and non-francophones alike. The text should read, “au moins huit heures de témoignages soient consacrées”.

I'm sorry. Once a teacher, always a teacher.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Tell me you're a teacher without telling me you're a teacher.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

I appreciate that. Our clerks will work on cleaning it up. Hopefully, we'll get it to a point where we're ready to finalize Mr. Sousa's amendment. I guess I'll allow the clerk to clean that up as Mrs. Vignola has suggested.

We're now back to Mr. Sousa's amended amendment.

Do we have anyone who wants to speak on Mr. Sousa's amended amendment?

Mrs. Block.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

I think it's always appropriate to have a minister appear to speak to issues like this. We, on this side of the table, would appreciate hearing from the minister on this issue. We'd be happy to add the deputy minister to the list, but we would like to see the minister remain on that list.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Mr. Sousa.

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

I appreciate the member opposite's desire to have the minister, as all of us would. I'm just trying to make certain that we have substantive value in the witnesses who come forward. We are going to have the minister appear on a number of occasions before us. I want to make certain that we deal with the matter that is of prevalence here, which is the executive and the CEO of the company determining how, in fact, they are operating. Even the deputy minister will have some limitations with respect to those answers. I wonder to what extent his being here will be the best use of his time. He'll just say they'll refer it to the CEO or to the executive, and it's arm's length. It's all those other things that are going to come out of it.

We need to get to the bottom of it. We need to make sure that the issues that are prevalent and the strategy...and that the board that oversees Canada Post is also held accountable for where we're going and how we're going forward. It is also the minister's desire to get to the bottom of those very issues that Mr. Bachrach....

Mrs. Block, I appreciate your desire. I would just rather save the minister for some more prevalent issues. You will have him here. In that case, you can ask him about this issue, as well as many other things, when he appears before us.

Again, I want to make good use of the time when we're having these deliberations and these witnesses, and get a more substantive response in terms of what comes forward.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

I see Mr. Lawrence and then Mr. Bachrach.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

I understand that. Certainly, some of these questions will be technical in nature. However, having now been at numerous committee meetings looking into the actions of Crown corporations and government departments, the trouble is that you get to a certain point with the deputy minister when they say—and rightfully so—they are not political and can't comment on that.

Therefore, I think it's absolutely critical, if we're going to have a serious review of this, to have the minister here in real time.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Mr. Bachrach.

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

I've gone back and forth on this. I think it's important to have the minister appear, because ultimately, the accountability sits at his desk and on his shoulders.

However, there's a new minister responsible for Canada Post. Based on my meetings with the last minister responsible for Canada Post, I'm not convinced that Canada Post is the top priority. I know; it's surprising.

Therefore, my preference would be to hear from witnesses throughout the course of the study, and then decide near the end whether the minister should be invited separately to address the topics that have been raised. I think that allows us to survey the issue and decide which aspects of the issue are really the responsibility of the minister and which questions we want to ask.

I've been part of other studies for which we had the minister appear at the first meeting, when the committee hadn't really dug into the material and heard from the witnesses who were the most affected.

That would be my preference. I think the deputy minister will have been with the department longer and is going to have more familiarity with the issues at hand. If we hear from the deputy near the beginning and then, when we get near the end of the study, decide whether it warrants having the minister appear, that would be my preference.

Speaking to the other parts of the amendment, I like the other parts, because they allow us to get through this in a fairly timely way.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Thank you.

I have Mrs. Block and then Mr. Sousa. I'll then suggest a compromise, which is something we've done in the past at this committee with ministers.

Go ahead.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

What I'm hearing is that there should be no reason to remove the minister from the list, just understanding that we will ask him to attend the committee if we feel it's necessary and at a time when it suits him. Maybe that's further down the road in this study.

I think we could still leave the minister on the list, understanding that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Mr. Sousa.

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

As I mentioned, he is willing to have discussions. In fact, there are matters of concern related to this file, and certainly the minister is interested and, being new, he is also trying to come up to speed, as Mr. Bachrach has just explained.

We do have a section that we have just allowed to be put in, which, as Mrs. Vignola suggested, is to have the witnesses in as they are required. I think that would fall under this case.

I'm not trying to suggest that the minister doesn't want to appear. He just wants his appearance to be valued. I suspect he's also going to take great interest in the witnesses who appear before us with regard to this, because this is a matter of concern that is, I think, shared by many Canadians with respect to many issues. Canada Post as a Crown corporation also has matters that need to be addressed. Having overseen other Crown corporations in the past, I recognize that doing this may entail some consequences on the political side, as are being expressed, that go beyond just the minister himself, because this is a substantive corporation that's been around for hundreds of years. It is also a matter of greater decisions being made by the Government of Canada as a whole.

I would suggest that we leave it as it is, to give the opportunity to have other witnesses as may be appropriate, thereby providing for the minister's engagement as well.