As long as people continue to interrupt us, there is no reason for us to stop.
Mr. Chairman, I hope everyone recognizes what triggered this debate in the first place. It was the fact that the government party—for some kind of reason we will explore to understand why they did it—proposed dealing with Mr. Fast's motion immediately, despite the fact that witnesses were present.
Why did they do so? For several reasons perhaps. Was it to pressure opposition members into adopting it? I must admit that it is not very dignified to engage in this type of behaviour before the people we asked to appear today. However, when the government attempts to impose this type of situation on us, we must stand our ground, even though we remain in our seats to do so. This is not the way the Canadian Parliament should function. We have rights, we have the right to be heard and we especially have the right to make informed decisions.
What explains the fascination and the urgency for the government to get a blank cheque when the minister promised over a year ago to address the issue of remailing—those were his words—in the House? He has not done so. I believe that my colleague Mr. Laframboise asked a similar question of the minister in the fall—I don't have the specific date, but I could find out—and he received a similar answer. At the time, the minister did not talk about a couple of days; but he did say "soon". It seems to me that he said it would be before the end of the year.
Because of the government's inaction, we are now faced with the following situation: our courts have stated very clearly that Canada Post's exclusive privilege had to be protected because it had the universal obligation to deliver first class mail. But for one reason or another, the minister still has not had the time to tell us about his plans, or he has not wanted to do so. Then the government members on the committee propose a motion, as did the original one presented by Mr. Fast, to amend the act in a way which would restrict, remove or amputate Canada Post's privilege, without the committee first hearing from witnesses or receiving additional information.
I must admit, Mr. Chairman, that I can neither understand nor accept this. We are accountable to our citizens. I've discussed the matter with my colleagues, and I might even discuss it with the members opposite who represent rural ridings. In light of the pressure to deal with this motion immediately, I would respond that any decision should perhaps be postponed. We will certainly not make a decision without first finding out what the minister has worked on. He said that he has worked on the issue of exclusive privilege and people who work for remailers for over a year now.
This is a very legitimate issue, Mr. Chairman, I don't deny it. However, as I said a few moments ago, there are other solutions rather than restricting, amputating or destroying the exclusive privilege of the Canada Post Corporation. As my colleague suggested, we could try to convince Canada Post to talk with the remailers to get them to work together, as was done for rural mail delivery, urban mail delivery and in other areas as well.
If the government presents a motion to rescind the exclusive privilege without discussing the consequences such as a decision would have, I cannot support it. I am therefore only doing what a responsible member of Parliament must do, that is, using the tools available to us and which were developed over decades and centuries. We can go back to the Magna Carta, if you wish. That is basically the kind of situation we are dealing with.
I could go on indefinitely, Mr. Chairman. In fact, I would like to point out that the record should show that I was willing to hear witnesses immediately, but the government members refused. That should not be forgotten.
When the time comes for the public to judge this meeting—and I expect that it will—and when both sides are accused of having violated democratic principles, let us not forget that the Conservative members of the committee were the ones who requested a change in the previously-scheduled agenda. They were also the ones who refused to give unanimous consent for hearing the witnesses. Considering their refusal, I hope that my colleagues opposite will feel somewhat embarrassed about making outrageous allegations. As a matter of fact, I would be happy to see them do so because I think that this is a substantive issue that deserves public debate.
Why should they insist on amputating or abolishing an exclusive privilege currently enjoyed by Canada Post for a very specific reason? This universal commitment should not be subject to any debate. Why should we not call witnesses from rural Canada who are probably the ones that are most threatened by this? This is a very legitimate question. I hope that when they begin to attack, as I expect them to, my colleagues will take the time to explain to the Canadian public why they want, at any price, to abolish this privilege and why they do not think that it is important for mail distribution in rural or isolated regions to continue as before.
Mr. Chairman, I think that you will agree with me that the substantive debate must be held before deciding on an issue that could have a very substantial impact on many citizens that each one of us is expected to represent.
I have said what I had to say, and let me conclude with these words, without any shame or any bitterness. I think that I know what would happen if we voted today. Beyond doubt, members will have to vote without having the facts that they need to make an informed decision.