Transport Committee on April 18th, 2007

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Monsieur Laframboise.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

You know, Mr. Chairman, I am somewhat disappointed in the way that we are discussing this matter today. I was the one who had tabled the motion to discuss re-mailing. I agreed, in good faith, not to question witnesses on anything that might be detrimental to labour relations. Unfortunately, I have a problem, as I was unable to ask the questions I wanted to ask. I wonder if adopting this motion will influence negotiations. Will the Canada Post Corporation lose money if this motion is adopted? As Mr. Bélanger said, will other amendments be made that will result in a reduction of service elsewhere because Canada Post will have to save somewhere?

I have a problem. Colleagues, you asked us not to question the witnesses last time. We did not have Ms. Greene on the same panel, because we did not want to discuss labour relations. I suggest that we suspend discussions until after the Canada Post negotiations, or that we bring the witnesses back and that we remove the condition to not discuss issues relating to labour relations. I suggest bringing the witnesses back to a meeting so that we can talk about the impact of this decision on labour relations and that we remove the restrictions we had imposed. Today, I will be forced to vote against the motion, unless Mr. Fast agrees to postpone it. I would prefer letting negotiations wrap up at Canada Post and discussing it immediately after that, or bringing the witnesses back so that we can talk about labour relations problems, because I am afraid that this decision will influence the negotiations on labour relations that are currently underway at Canada Post. If that were the case, I would call it into question. I would not want other services to be penalized because of a decision we have made today. In that regard, I agree with Mr. Bélanger. Under the circumstances, our colleague must agree to postpone the motion, otherwise I will be forced to vote against it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Julian.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

I'm a bit perplexed as well, Mr. Chair. I understand that the minister said he would conduct a review in December. I assume he has done his homework. If so, where is that review and where is the information? It hasn't come before committee yet. I assume the government will be doing that.

I'm concerned, as my colleagues are, about what the impacts are. There's an impact on the jobs of international remailers, but there is also a potential impact on rural mail delivery.

I represent the urban riding of Burnaby—New Westminster, and we don't have rural service. But if I were in a riding like Abbotsford or Fort McMurray—Athabasca, where there are rural communities, I would want to get to the bottom of this to find out what the potential impact would be on rural mail service.

So I think this is very premature. I'm a little surprised by it, and I certainly won't be supporting it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Jean.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

First of all, this is not a government motion. It was brought by a government member, but we certainly believe in democracy, and every one of our members should have the opportunity to exercise their right to that.

In relation to Mr. Bélanger's comment, I believe that a letter was circulated from the international remailers. That's the letter that was referred to. All committee members received it; whether they read it or not is another question.

Finally, to respond to the comments of Mr. Julian, Monsieur Laframboise, as well as other members from the Liberal Party, how could this affect rural mail when it's been going on for 25 years? International remailers have been working for 25 years and it has never affected rural mail, or at least we have no evidence to suggest it might. So how could it, if it were passed?

Quite frankly, I think the main concern here is the enforcement of actions against the international remailers and this committee working towards that.

I wonder if Mr. Fast could comment further on the particular issue of emergency on this.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

I have Mr. Fast on the list, so I will ask him to keep his powder dry for a few minutes.

Mr. Volpe.

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

I hope not to be too long, but I thank you very much for this.

As I recall the debate, when we had the interview, the issue revolved around the fact that Canada Post had sought a court decision on the definition of “exclusive privilege” in either or both of the two official languages. What we wanted to do was make sure that we had that clarity.

The courts decided on a particular definition, but the courts aren't the ones that execute the law. The Parliament of Canada, the Government of Canada, can determine what it is that it wants to do.

Mr. Jean, I share the view that if something's been going on for 20 years, it probably hasn't caused anybody any harm. So what I'd like to do, rather than create a problem, is try to solve one that's emerged. Now whether it's emerged because of activity or because Canada Post sought and got a definition it wanted post factum is another story.

In the final analysis, what's going to happen is that the government will have to make that definition. It has to bring in an amendment to the legislation that says this is what that definition should be. So whether we do it here or whether it's done in the House, it's going to end up in the House.

I can appreciate, from a political, tactical point of view, that perhaps the government might want to see whether a committee here, reflective of the dynamics in the House, would be in favour. Quite frankly, my colleague, Mr. Bélanger, is quite right. If you don't see what the definition is going to be, it's going to be kind of hard to say that as a holus-bolus principle, this is what it is.

On the second item, and that is what the impact might be on rural postal delivery, I'm one of those who still thinks Canada Post has a legal obligation to deliver first class mail. That means that as long as it is part of a government entity, the Government of Canada underwrites that cost. We shouldn't be looking to private sector arguments about how that's going to be conducted.

I was around here when Canada Post and the private sector were diametrically opposed. Now we're obviously in a different world. If it's a question of seeking to have a commercial advantage, that's fine. But I don't want to be part of something that gets commercial advantage as a result of some obfuscation of language. So let's clarify the language.

I appreciate what Mr. Fast is trying to do. Earlier on, in consultation with my colleagues, we had the kind of conversation in which the impression was that a motion would come forward and we would ask for clarification. The government still has the initiative one way or the other, and that still has to be done.

Mr. Fast, I find myself in a position in which I'd like to support exactly what you've written down, but it's going to be very difficult, because there is no implementation ability, even if I support this. The government, taking a report from the chairman of this committee, will have to go to the House and say that we heard what the committee would say, and here's the language. Then I might find myself at odds with the language the government is going to put forward, and nobody is any further ahead.

What I would propose, Mr. Fast, is that perhaps you go back to the minister and say that around the table there is great concern about the confusion that will have been caused and that has been caused by the interpretation the courts have given to this language, and ask for clarification, because there are people who are anxious to do the right thing, and the right thing does not include putting people out of business.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Go ahead, Mr. Bell.

[Don Bell, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Thank you.

I would share some of my colleague Mr. Volpe's comments. I generally don't have a particular problem with carrying on with the way it's been done in the past. That's having mail outside Canada handled by independent businesses. In my mind, certainly, Canada Post should have exclusive privilege within Canada. I think the fact that the system has worked in the past....

Now I appreciate their interest in securing additional revenue sources, and I see that as being used to perhaps fund less profitable sides. The danger is that they appeared here--with us having had some restrictions on what we were going to say--and then left and maybe assumed that the issue was settled as far as our minds were concerned. And I don't hear that it is. There are different points of view, even among colleagues within our party.

I think it would benefit from a discussion. I'm not prepared to support this at this moment without that discussion. But I have to say that I'm inclined to be sympathetic to the position put forward by Mr. Fast.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Fast.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

The committee may be under the mistaken impression that I've been disingenuous in bringing this motion forward. That's not the case. The purpose of this was actually as a response to some of the concerns that have been raised by the remailers. Ultimately it is an issue of timing. They are panicking now because it appears that Canada Post either has the right, or is on the verge of having the right, to implement enforcement proceedings and shut them down. Given that it has existed for well over 20 years, we're trying to preserve the status quo.

Now if there were some way of us, as a committee, being able to instruct either the courts or Canada Post or even the minister to hold off on any further legal action until there's further study by this committee, I'd be inclined to follow through on that. I'm advised, though, that there are some legal considerations. If there is actually a court order in place, it may be imprudent for the minister or for this government to actually hold off on enforcement actions. I mean, it's a concern of mine. If there was some way around that, I would be pleased to follow through with that.

I am concerned, because Mr. Bélanger has indicated he may not be inclined to support the remailers. We're talking about a significant industry in Canada that has co-existed with Canada Post for well over two decades. It was only because someone noticed that there was a loophole and a disjunct between the English and French versions that we now find ourselves in the pickle of having a Supreme Court order that says Canada Post has exclusive privilege.

So that's my concern. If someone can suggest a better way of protecting the interests of the remailers, at least in the interim while we resolve this, I'd be interested in hearing it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

I want to advise the committee that unless there is a motion to defer it, or Mr. Fast agrees to defer it, we will stay here and continue until this—

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

I move to defer, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

I have people on a list, so I will go through it.

Monsieur Laframbroise.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

I simply want us to understand each other. Earlier, Mr. Jean told us no one would lose any money. Unfortunately, I was not able to question the CEO, who estimated revenues at $75 million. Was she talking about expected losses or additional revenues?

I do not want Canada Post to get rich on the backs of the remailers. However, I would not want the $75 million to undermine the discussions and negotiations on the current collective agreement. I would not want her to say that there was a shortfall of $75 million because of our motion and that she is forced to cut rural services, etc. I want to make sure that does not occur. I don't have the answers today. I want us to be able to examine that. I do not want it to undermine current negotiations, as you yourself suggested.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Chair, I'd be pleased to defer the matter until the next meeting.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Okay.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

This is serious enough for us to give it some proper consideration.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Because Monday's meeting is full, I would say we would defer it to another meeting.

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Wednesday is not too late.

I wonder whether it would be prudent to advise Canada Post, through the minister's office, that the committee is seized of this issue and that it wants to deal with it before Canada Post does anything.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Okay.

We have Mr. Julian's motion.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Chair, it's redundant. Mr. Preuss is coming on Monday. You have already allowed questions related to air safety within the framework of Bill C-6, so we will be permitted to ask questions of Mr. Preuss on air safety.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

At the next meeting on Monday we'll deal with the minister and the government officials on Bill C-6—

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Mr. Chair, is the motion withdrawn?