Court decision.
Evidence of meeting #50 for Transport, Infrastructure and Communities in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
Evidence of meeting #50 for Transport, Infrastructure and Communities in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
May 9th, 2007 / 3:45 p.m.
Liberal
Mauril Bélanger Liberal Ottawa—Vanier, ON
I would not have supported the swap if I had been here. I thought I'd have a chance to collect my thoughts before addressing this, but since I haven't had that chance I will attempt to do so.
I have said in the past that I thought this motion was premature at best, in the sense that we've had very cursory discussions on the rather significant extent and impact of the motion before us. We asked only a few questions of some people who came here representing remailers. We barely had a chance to ask Canada Post some questions on this. Here we are tampering with a principle that has been entrenched in law for well over 25 years.
Governments in the past—whether they were Conservative or Liberal—have supported the exclusive privilege of Canada Post for very obvious reasons that are stated in law and have been interpreted as such by tribunals time and again. Now, on a whim it seems, the government is asking opposition to give carte blanche or sign a blank cheque to tamper with the privilege that has been invested in Canada Post so it also carries out its universal obligation of delivering letters.
We have heard many times from postal workers, tribunals, elected representatives, and Canada Post administrators that the two are linked. There is the universal obligation of Canada Post to deliver a letter. Whether it be from downtown Yellowknife to Halifax, or across the street in Toronto or Hamilton or Ottawa, there must be a uniformity of service accessibility throughout the country. Here we're trying to tamper with the privilege they have, the exclusivity, but we've given no consideration to and have had no discussion or debate whatsoever on what the effect of that might be on the universal obligation.
I don't represent a rural riding. I represent an urban riding, and it would probably be much better for the constituents I represent if there wasn't this universal obligation. We could probably cut a deal with Canada Post if they didn't have to carry out this universal obligation. We could have Canada Post deliver mail from across the street at a much lower rate than 53¢ a stamp. But is that the kind of country we want to build? Previous governments have said no, time and again. We'll be tampering with that if we accept this motion, and I just can't.
If we're even going to consider that, we as responsible parliamentarians have to give it due consideration, have people present the pros and cons of the case, have a chance to kick the tires, if you will, and ask questions so we can have a determination and not a blank cheque, as we're being asked for.
I think anyone who represents a rural riding here has to give their head a shake to see whether or not they know what they're doing if we approve this motion.
There are other of factors that we need to know. John McKay asked the minister over a year ago what he intended to do about remailers. John McKay quoted the answer of the minister in the official report of Hansard on May 16, 2006. He said:
—it is a very important subject. I have received representation not only from members opposite but also members from our political party. We are looking at the issue now and we will be taking note not only of that issue, but we will be advising the House as to what we want to do in the coming days.
It's now a year later, and we're still waiting to hear what the minister intends to do.
I believe Monsieur Laframboise asked the minister a similar question in the fall last year and the answer was somewhat similar: that we'll get an indication of what the government intends to do some time in December, before the year end.
We're now well beyond that, in May 2007, and we still have no indication. The closest we got on what the minister intends to do was last Monday, when he appeared before us for estimates. I don't know how many people were aware that he might be planning a review of Canada Post. He said that the government has not ruled it out and is still considering a review of Canada Post. He did not indicate in any way, shape, or form how he intended to deal with the remailers issue, and whether or not that has an impact on the universal obligation of Canada Post and its exclusive privilege.
So these are all things that we have to consider. If you look at the decisions of the Ontario Court of Appeal, and some of the argumentation being presented by Mr. Fast, in terms of there being some confusion between English and French, well, as a francophone, I don't think there's any confusion, Mr. Chairman.
The precedents of law and the jurisprudence in this country are quite clear. If one text, whether English or French, is clearer than the other, that's where we go. And the French text is very clear about exclusivity. It's not exclusivity for the whole thing; there's exclusivity for Canada Post in the pickup of mail and in the transport and delivering of it in the country.
When we say that, we get this letter waved at us, which my leader has signed, saying, well, there's confusion. There is no confusion, because Canada Post has exclusivity today for the delivery of mail, yet uses private contractors for the delivery of mail.
Correct, Mr. Chairman? I believe everyone would agree with that. So why could it not do the same thing for collection and therefore deal with the remailers?
Respecting the exclusive privilege of Canada Post and therefore maintaining its universal obligation does not mean, ipso facto, that remailers will be out of business. It's just that they'll have to deal with the one who has the exclusive privilege. That's something they've not been wanting to do.
I'm quite prepared to quote the Ontario Court of Appeal decision on this very issue. I hope that every member who has been asked to vote on this will have a chance to read this, because it is quite revealing, Mr. Chairman.
The other thing is the declarations made in the House by the minister's parliamentary secretary. They're quite revealing. I believe they might have been made at the adjournment debate. Basically, the parliamentary secretary here today was criticizing my colleague Mr. McKay for daring to question the courts. He asked repeatedly if we were not questioning the courts. No, we were not. But it seems like the government might be doing that here with this motion, because the courts—the judges—have repeatedly recognized the link between the exclusive privilege and the universal obligation of delivery. And if we tamper with that, we may wake up to the fact that rural mail service is not as good as and a hell of a lot more expensive than it is today. I don't want to wear that, Mr. Chairman, because that is not the country I'm trying to build.
Yes, some people may think I'm being a little bit far-flung when talking about building a country, but you build a country bit by bit. Treating our rural citizens as fairly and equitably as citizens who live in the urban centres is part of building a society and a country I respect.
So it is that significant, what we're being asked to do here. I hope my colleagues will vote against this. It is not the time; it is premature, and we've not done our homework.
I'm not opposed, as a responsible member of Parliament, to listening to both sides, but let's do that. We haven't right now.
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
Joe Volpe Liberal Eglinton—Lawrence, ON
Parliament is a wonderful place, because all of us can share differing opinions and have an opportunity to disagree.
I'm assuming that Mr. Fast is accepting my motion as a friendly amendment.
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
Joe Volpe Liberal Eglinton—Lawrence, ON
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.
4 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
Thank you, Mr. Volpe.
I will just advise the committee members that although there has been an indication that the amendment is agreeable by the government side, we are still debating that amendment.
Mr. Julian.
4 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
Mr. Chair, we're just getting into the arguments. I would propose that we table this discussion and hear our witnesses.
I move to table.
4 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
I'm advised that it's not an admissible motion. The question I would ask you is this. Are you moving to adjourn debate?
4 p.m.
The Clerk of the Committee Mr. Mark D'Amore
It doesn't exist in Canadian parliamentary procedure.
4 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
Okay, Mr. Chair, if Mr. Fast is not willing to withdraw the motion—he seems hell-bent on ramming it through, regardless of what the implications are for rural Canada—I'd like to then speak to the amendment.
As I stated earlier, Mr. Volpe is trying to be helpful, but—
4 p.m.
Liberal
Mauril Bélanger Liberal Ottawa—Vanier, ON
Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order. Have you ruled that the amendment to Mr. Fast's motion to defer is no longer under consideration? You may recall that the last time we dealt with this, Mr. Fast had moved that it be deferred until a subsequent meeting, to which I proposed an amendment that it be deferred until the minister had tabled the promised response to the remailers matter.
Have you ruled that this is no longer under consideration?
4 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
The subcommittee agreed to put it on today's agenda, and as the meeting started, there was a motion to move it to the front of the agenda.
4 p.m.
Liberal
Mauril Bélanger Liberal Ottawa—Vanier, ON
I understand that, but what was under discussion, Mr. Chairman—and I don't believe the subcommittee has the authority to decide for the full committee—was a motion to defer this until such time as the minister had responded, as promised, to the matter of remailers. Where is that?
4 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
It's been explained to me that the amendment you put forward was to defer it to the following Wednesday, which passed. Am I correct?
4 p.m.
A voice
No.
4 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
No, the date passed.
This brings us back to the original motion with the amendment that has been proposed by Mr. Volpe.
4 p.m.
Liberal
Mauril Bélanger Liberal Ottawa—Vanier, ON
The motion was that this be deferred until such time as the minister responded, as promised, to the matter of remailers. That has not passed, Mr. Chairman. Therefore, I would submit to you that this motion has to be disposed of first.
