Thank you.
I want to address a couple of issues.
I think the question of the courts and their interpretation of what exclusive privilege might mean is not a hindrance to the government making decisions about what can be done and what should not be done.
I've indicated in other questions here in this committee that the Government of Canada is obligated to ensure that the postal delivery system functions in all parts of the country. The exclusive privilege is not necessarily tied to the commercial viability of Canada Post to deliver a letter either in Nunavut or in downtown Toronto. If there's a shortfall, it is the obligation of the Government of Canada to ensure the service is provided.
Secondly, yes, the courts have pronounced on what those words mean in either of the two languages, but it does not preclude the government from taking action. It says this is what the language, in our opinion, means under these circumstances. This does not infringe on the obligation to appropriately govern.
My amendment seeks to draw this debate to a focus. Aside from making the necessary partisan political statements that we know are part and parcel of the democratic process, because they get debate going, it says what the minister ought to be doing if he or she wants to discharge the responsibility that the law or the legislation imposes. The minister would have the support of this committee if he or she did that. It's really what my amendment says.
I'm pleased the government members accept it as a friendly amendment. I think it's consistent with what my colleague from Ottawa—Vanier has indicated about trying to build a country. My focus is to ensure the government conducts its duties responsibly, and I want to hold them to task.
With respect to whether or not Canada Post is a commercially viable entity, and whether or not that prevents Canada Post from doing its job in a fashion that we think is appropriate in a modern environment, I know you've handed this out already, Mr. Chairman, in French and in English. It's a letter from CUPW urging Canada Post to invest profits in public postal service and safety. I think the first and second lines are instructive. It's very revealing about where our debates might take us. If you'll bear with me, I'll read it to you. It says:
Canada Post’s annual report announced record volumes and $119 million in net profits in 2006, its twelfth consecutive year of making millions and its twenty-fifth year of providing universal, affordable public postal service.
I don't think that the commercial issue or the viability of the commercial practices have been called into question.
For 20 years, yes, we heard whatever evidence we heard. Some would say it was not enough, and some would say it was too much. We have heard uncontested evidence that remailers have been in the business for 20 years.
Before it was interpreted, the legislation was not a problem for Canada Post. It wasn't a problem for the discharge of the responsibilities of government. It became an issue of commercial competitiveness. If that's all it is, then we can address this immediately.
My motion does not tell Canada Post that it must do X, Y, or Z. It says that in order for the minister to act, the minister has to give a consultative directive to Canada Post to amend its regulations, which have to be discussed by their board of directors. They have to be approved by Parliament. Canada Post is responsible to Parliament. We're asking the minister to take specific action.
Remember here, we're talking about a practice. We're not talking about the law. We're not talking about an interpretation of an item. We're not asking a judge or a court to intervene. We're asking that the minister discharge his responsibilities and his duties with a corporation that comes under his administrative overview and say to that administrative executive, “This is what the Government of Canada intends. Go to your council and put forward the appropriate regulations. If it doesn't meet with Parliament's approval, that's a different story, but at this stage of the game you are to cease and desist from putting these people out of business.” And there are three ways: you can exercise an option, you can discontinue, you can withdraw or you can consent. Okay, so fine, nobody's prescribing that some one specific thing be done.
My colleague from Ottawa-Vanier says we can still do subcontracting. Well, fine, nothing prevents Canada Post from engaging in that practice. What it does do is it delivers two messages. One message is we want the minister to act. The second one is we want Canada Post to stop doing what it's doing and to seek cooperation until such time as the minister's prescription is taken into consideration and works its way through the Canada Post Corporation.
Otherwise, we're asking the courts to do all of the commercial dealings that would normally be accomplished by negotiations. We're asking the courts to reverse 20 years of acceptable commercial activity and we're asking the courts to do the bidding of members of Parliament when they put businesses and people out of business and out of jobs.
Mr. Chairman and colleagues, I recognize all of us have difficulties with all of this. I recognize that. I'm delighted the government members accepted my motion as a friendly amendment, because yes, to quote Mr. Julian, I am trying to be helpful for everybody around the table. I hope everybody takes that in the spirit, because we are all here, I think, to do what my colleague from Ottawa-Vanier says, and that is, to build a society and a country. I can't see that not being done by giving the minister an opportunity to accomplish what he must.