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.