Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'd like to get now, as soon as possible, to the CP Rail witnesses; that's how we were to start this meeting, and its purpose. But on this issue I have to say--and I may have a difference of opinion here with some of my colleagues—that I have supported the issue. I believe, having listened to the material—
I have read the court decision. I have read the letter from CUPW. Generally I have a record of supporting legislation that protects the right of workers. But I don't see this issue as being about the rights of workers. I see it as being about the rights of Canada Post, in this case the question of who delivers what part of the mail. And I understand there's a difference in the definition and the wording between the English and French versions as to exclusive privilege and what that means.
Having looked at the issue and the facts behind it, that for 17 years, by court acknowledgment, since 1990, CP was aware of this situation—for at least 15 of those years, it looks like, they took no action on it—my belief is that before we stand back and allow the court decisions to in fact allow existing private remailers to be put out of business, we should express an opinion.
I understand the rulings and the explanation here, that by allowing Canada Post to have the more profitable business it allows it to subsidize the less profitable business. But it's already making a good profit, and this is something that has been happening for years.
You know, the recent court judgments may precipitate—My concern is Canada Post taking immediate action against the remailer now. I'm prepared to have a full discussion on the remailer issue, as I hear from my colleagues, but I don't want to practically have irreversible action taken—because once the company is dismantled, it's not going to rebuild--that would adversely affect a situation that CP has known about, as they've acknowledged, since at least 1990.
I think it's premature to ram through a change, if you want to call it that, in the remailing structure that's been there for 20-plus years. The perverse impact that's referred to would be to change the current reality or the current status quo by not indicating our possible position, in this case my position, to the minister, to Canada Post, and to the government regarding private remailers.
So I am prepared to support the amendment, and the amended motion that would come, in Mr. Volpe's motion. In doing so I think we would maintain the current status quo and then we could still get the report from the minister and have a subsequent report if we wanted to change that position. But by passing the motion where it is now, we allow the current situation to carry on.