Evidence of meeting #53 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 review.
A recording is available from Parliament.
5:25 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Indeed, I've heard the issues many people around the table have brought up. I think Mr. Bélanger is asking for something reasonable, but I would suggest it should be done the other way. Indeed, the minister did not say, first of all, that he was going to do a review. He said “a possible review”, and that's reflected there, so it's speculation.
But we don't need the authority of the minister or anything else to provide terms of reference that we believe would be appropriate. We could, as a committee--because we are masters of our own destiny--come forward with terms of reference that we think would be appropriate for the minister to at least address in any review, if the review takes place.
But what I'm concerned with, and I think most members around the table are concerned with, is the possibility of a delay as a result of this motion. That's why I would suggest that it could be finessed a little bit.
The first thing is remailers. We already have an action there, and we need to take action there. The next one is rural mail delivery and rural post offices. We have issues that are taking place across the country on that, as we speak. My concern is that if indeed we passed a motion like this, a time delay would take place--and I do believe it would take place as a result of the bureaucracy--to have the minister do particular things with particular parts of that Canada Post file.
My recommendation would be to change the wording so that we would do a review some time before the end of December. We could have one or two meetings and set them aside and provide the minister with what we believe could be the terms of reference that he would deal with. I think that would be a more appropriate way to deal with it, especially because it's a possible review, as you've said. It's not a real review. And that, indeed, might even spur the minister to act on reviewing Canada Post, if he had an idea that this committee would work with him to get the job done.
5:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
If there are no other comments, I'm wondering, Monsieur Bélanger, if you'd clarify the French for us.
5:30 p.m.
Liberal
Mauril Bélanger Liberal Ottawa—Vanier, ON
Well, what Mr. Julian read seemed to be appropriate.
Monsieur Julian, do you still have that?
5:30 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
Yes. It would read "provide the committee an opportunity to study and provide recommendations to the terms of reference of any review of Canada Post prior to its commencement".
5:30 p.m.
Conservative
5:30 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
Very quickly, though, Mr. Chair, it is asking for the committee to have an opportunity to study it prior to the terms of reference being made or prior to any commencement of study, so it does have the possibility of delaying action during the summer, for instance. It does have the possibility of delaying action generally.
Quite frankly, from a committee perspective, wouldn't it make more sense to say, we're involved on the floor, we know what's going on, we're the workers involved in this particular file, we've heard from different representatives and we can hear from more, and this is what we believe the terms of reference should be if you're going to conduct a review? Certainly it would make more sense.
5:30 p.m.
Bloc
Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
My first comment was specifically so as to avoid delaying our work. That said, I would ask Mr. Jean to act in good faith. If the minister wants a review of Canada Post, he should discuss the matter with us. We may have some suggestions for him.
You seem to be saying that you are unsure whether there will or will not be a review. I would suggest you enquire and get back to us on the matter. I do not want to delay our study. If the minister is preparing for a review and the officials can tell us what they will be reviewing, we may have some suggestions. I think that is the purpose of it. We could do this as of next week, on the condition that they are prepared to do a review; if not, they won't, it is not a problem for me.
5:30 p.m.
Liberal
Mauril Bélanger Liberal Ottawa—Vanier, ON
Mr. Chairman, there's no desire to slow anything down here. I have no idea whether the government intends to proceed, and I have no difficulty with the government proceeding to a review, if that is its wish. That's the executive authority of government--no problem. All I'm saying, as a parliamentarian on this committee, is if the government intends to proceed, take the occasion to solicit our views on recommendations on how to proceed.
I don't want to do that in the abstract, and I don't want to do it needlessly. I understand that the committee can do so if it wishes, but I'm not proposing that the committee do so needlessly. I would only do so if indeed the government intends to proceed. In that case, take a few days--I'm not talking about months--and solicit our input, our reactions, and our recommendations. We can do that in the summer. Committees can meet in the summer.
5:30 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
I'm wondering if Mr. Bélanger would take a friendly amendment to strike out the words “prior to its commencement”. I say that because I think it would be clear that the minister would have notice of this particular motion if it were to pass by the committee. As well, it is clear that working with this particular committee could only be an advantage for the minister. To put “prior to its commencement” simply limits the situation over the summer and it limits the opportunity the minister has to come to the rescue of remailers, rural mail, and rural post offices. I don't think it's appropriate.
5:30 p.m.
Liberal
Mauril Bélanger Liberal Ottawa—Vanier, ON
I repeat, Mr. Chairman, that this is not directed at remailers, or anybody; this flows from the information the minister shared with us, that he is considering a review of Canada Post, writ large. If he is, then as a member of this committee, I would like to have an occasion to make suggestions on how that review might be conducted, before it starts. I mean, what's the point of having the mandate and terms of reference set and then we comment? I think that's a little awkward.
So it's not a friendly amendment.
Again, this is a motion. I presented a very similar motion on the review of the CBC mandate at the heritage committee, and it was approved unanimously at committee and in the House. There's nothing nefarious here; it's a matter of parliamentarians wanting to provide to the government, before it embarks on a review of an important corporation, their own suggestions and perhaps recommendations on what to include, what not to include, and how to proceed. It does not detract from the government's ability to do something separately on remailers or this committee's decision to address that issue before the end of December.
I don't see where the hang-up is here.
5:35 p.m.
Liberal
Joe Volpe Liberal Eglinton—Lawrence, ON
I wonder whether we're just working ourselves into an opposition frame of mind for no reason at all. The minister, when he presents a bill to the House, has the option of sending it directly to committee or of waiting until it goes through second reading. What I see is that this one exercises the same kind of option as you would have with a bill, except that it comes over here first. In that way, when your terms of reference are out there, they're out there. For us, it's to recommend to the minister.... First of all, he doesn't have to conduct a review. Second, he doesn't have to accept our recommendation if he does conduct a review. We just want to establish the fact that we're working together.
As Mr. Bélanger said--and it's his motion, not mine--nobody's interested in limiting the executive power of the minister. If the minister wants to conduct a review, fine. If he doesn't want to conduct a review, it doesn't matter whether this passes unanimously or by majority vote, he's still not going to conduct one.
5:35 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
Very quickly, Mr. Chair, we're concerned about the delay. The minister is working very closely with this committee. He's trying his best to work cooperatively. I would suggest that a unanimous motion from this committee would, first of all, with the wording as is, from a legal perspective, encourage a review of Canada Post, for certain. I think Mr. Bélanger is aware of that, or at least I would think so.
Second, I'm concerned about the delay. We have three to four months during the summer, and if something comes up, I would suggest that the minister's work with this committee on a cooperative basis would tie his hands. A friendly amendment, I would suggest, would take that away and still work cooperatively with the minister and this committee. It makes sense.
5:35 p.m.
Liberal
Don Bell Liberal North Vancouver, BC
I just wanted to clarify for Mr. Bélanger. I understood his comments. There's nothing in this motion suggesting that this motion would in any way impact the question of remailers. This is separate. The remailer thing goes ahead; we deal with it as quickly as possible and get that resolved. So to Mr. Fast's question about the number of employees--and he knows I'm supportive of that issue being resolved--this is not dealing with that at all.
5:35 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
It's not separate. A review of Canada Post, I assume, would deal with section 14, the exclusive privilege of Canada Post, which is on the issue of remailers. So any review would, of course, impact this, and this motion directly impacts remailers.
