Joe Volpe

[Canada Transportation Act, December 10th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the House for giving me the opportunity to voice the position of the Liberal Party, the former Government of Canada, on this bill.

I want to thank the parliamentary secretary for having had the elegance of thought to acknowledge that this bill was presented by the government of which I was a member and which saw another reincarnation as Bill C-58.

I think other members of both parties are probably equally thankful that the bill has seen its way not only through this House but also through committee. Witness, of course, the fact that report stage went through without comment and that we received, to all intents and purposes, the unanimous consent of all members of this House so that the bill could receive its third and final reading, be voted upon, be sent to the Senate, and be proclaimed.

Why would something like that happen? All members of Parliament have a special interest in ensuring that there is a rebalancing of the relationship between the railway companies and the shippers, be they large or small. More than anything else, I think that members of Parliament, at least from my party, the Liberal Party, the official opposition, has always looked for a balance in the relationship between those who need a particular service and those who provide that service.

The parliamentary secretary used the words “to reintroduce balance”. I thank him for thinking in terms of what needed to be done, and that is to restructure the relationship that had started to develop in a counterproductive way between the railway companies and the shippers. He noted in establishing that interest of balance that all the shippers want this and he is probably right.

Those who came before committee, those who lobbied him, that lobbied me, and that lobbied the Bloc, all said exactly the same thing. They all said that it was time that the relationship that has evolved between them needs to have the Government of Canada, through the agency, establish a relationship that would regenerate the competitiveness of the shipping industry and all those who buy our products.

What he really meant, I guess, is that without this bill we could see the competitiveness of many of our producing companies and those industries, be they agricultural, lumber, or mining, suffer at the hands of the negative impacts of the monopoly behaviour that had been established by the two monopolies in the railway industry that essentially put the shippers at their mercy.

It was not always this way. Obviously, there have been difficulties between the supplier of the service, the railway companies, and the shippers who need that service in order to get their product to the emerging markets that require Canadian produce and commodities.

What has happened over the passage of time is that the railways, as the parliamentary secretary has indicated, have established their position of predominance over the shippers that they serve. What is the result?

First of all, there has been an inconsistency in the predictability of the service required by the shippers, so that they in turn can provide for their own marketplace, a guarantee that their product will be delivered on time as prescribed by the contractual arrangement between the buyer of that commodity, usually abroad in the Pacific emerging markets, or even in the United States.

Second, that the price that was agreed to initially would suffer as a result of the delay, the ancillary services, and the other penalties that occur as a result of the railways not providing, as agreed, the kinds of services that had been contracted.

We have heard many stories in committee, many anecdotes, that have angered the shippers and, in turn, the small producers that feed into the shipping companies. As I say, whether they are farmers or lumber companies, all of them have faced great difficulties. They could not guarantee a price because they could not guarantee a time of delivery to the markets that they wanted to penetrate or they had in fact already developed.

The kind of relationship that the railways had established and imposed, in fact, upon the very people they purported to serve, proposed to serve and for whom they had made investments to serve had turned out to be counterproductive. It is counterproductive from a Canadian point of view, from a macro Canadian interest point of view, from the point of view of a Canadian economy that needs to grow and provide assurances for all of its markets that it is capable of producing a timely product with timely delivery, and a price that is competitive worldwide.

They have been unable to do that and so the parliamentary secretary calls this the shippers bill. It is more important than that. It is not just a bill that is important for shippers. It is important for the competitiveness of the Canadian economy.

As a result, we see that there are provisions in this bill to ensure that the monopolistic behaviour of the railway companies is moderated to the point that it is capable of delivery and what Canadians, through them, must have. They must have a guarantee of service at a predetermined price and in a timely fashion that will allow for a revenue stream to come back to the shippers and producers, so that they can then access the financing they, in turn, require in order to make investments in the production of said products.

It does not take much in terms of rocket science to appreciate that the bill is not a shippers bill. It is a bill for you, Mr. Speaker, it is a bill for all of us to ensure that which produces great wealth for Canada, that contributes to the positive side of the ledger in international trade is guaranteed.

We cannot put in jeopardy either our producers or shippers, the very people, the very production systems, the very industries that ensure that we will be able to generate wealth. We cannot put them in a precarious position and at the mercy of those who deliver their product from point A to point B.

That is absolutely crucial because now we are entering into the area of the viability of Canada's infrastructure. Given the great distances between not only our people but the source of those products and commodities and the markets, we need to be able to have an infrastructure that is reliable.

That does not mean simply having a road that is paved. It does not simply mean having a railway track that functions without incidents or accidents on as frequent a basis as we have seen. No, it means that we need to have that type of infrastructure function in an efficient and economic fashion that continues to regenerate the business which makes its existence mandatory.

What do we do with a bill like this one? As I said earlier, it received the support of all members of Parliament in committee and, I dare say, will receive the support of all members of Parliament in the House, unless, of course, some in the NDP decide that they want to filibuster.

They will receive the support of Canadians everywhere because, in effect, what will transpire is a new infrastructure of legislation to govern the mandates given to the railway companies and to the shippers as stewards of Canada's natural resource wealth, a wealth that needs to be materialized, realized and brought to fruition in foreign markets, so that Canadians can say, yes, this wealth will be distributed for the good of all citizens, one and all.

Mr. Speaker, the bill, as you already noted at second reading, was examined by members of the committee on your behalf very thoroughly, and I might add that, subsequent to the debate such as it was, there was no need to amend the bill.

Imagine, no need to amend the bill that saw its genesis in 2005 with the then Liberal administration, saw its regeneration again as Bill C-58 last May, and is now again before the House as Bill C-8 with not a change, not a comma, not a semicolon, not a capital at the beginning of a sentence, nothing.

Why? Because it has been a bill that has been thoroughly researched. The consultation has taken place with all of the stakeholders and even the railways have not objected as strenuously as one might expect from those who are compelled to do something with which they are, at least in the recent past, not familiar and that is equitable behaviour. But they see the wisdom of the legislation.

We will see that certain mechanisms in this bill, those clauses that ensure the balance is regenerated back between the shippers and the railway companies, are at the core of everything. When things are balanced out, everyone realizes that fairness is the basis for any relationship that develops as a result. What is fair? What is fair, of course, is that shippers contract to have their product taken from point A to a port where the railway companies will deliver the cars required or that product to be picked up at a time contracted so that everybody's expenses are diminished. That is fair.

Therefore, this bill says we are not going to dictate at which time, which day and under what circumstances said number of cars are going to be delivered, but if shippers contract to deliver said number of cars on said day at such and such a time, then railways must deliver and if they do not, there are commercial consequences in the appropriate court.

One might say, well one might say we would go to court anyway. Well, no, not when David is facing Goliath. The government has accepted the will of Parliament and we have decided no more David and Goliath relationship. We are going to ensure that the shippers are adequately protected in this unbalanced relationship.

If there is a price agreed, there shall be no changes to those prices unless companies have given at least a 30 day notice of same. We have seen this: prices subject to change without notice. That is good for those who benefit from that, but it is not good for those who project their business plan on the basis of a guaranteed price down the road. The railways have to give at least a 30 day notice that prices are going to be changed while still delivering the service which they have contracted to deliver.

It sound fair. The parliamentary secretary says that it is reintroducing balance. That is a backhanded way of saying the other guys have been taking an unfair advantage of a situation. Is that being critical? It should be. What else does it say?

My colleagues from the Bloc will recall that we had some discussion about ancillary services. What are they? In one instance, the railroad said that it had six points to consider. Another one, a shipper, pointed out that there are something like 30 to 60 items that are added on to a price.

One of our colleagues on committee said that it sounded a little bit like going in to buy a car, but after we have contracted the price the dealer says, by the way, if we want a motor it costs this much more, and if we want tires on every wheel, it costs this much more and so on. By the time we are finished, we might well be paying twice as much for the car as what we initially contracted.

Therefore, there is transparency of cost. There is transparency of the final price for the product that is being delivered, not necessarily by the shippers, because they already have to do that with their producers and the people over at the ports where they are going to deliver the material. It is something that the railways must be able to guarantee their shippers.

I think the minister agrees, because he put that into the bill. However, we need to make sure people understand that this is what balancing the relationship between railways and shippers is really all about. It is ensuring that no one takes undue advantage of a relationship of power that has developed over time.

As I said, the ultimate beneficiaries of course will be the Canadian public and the Canadian marketplace. If nothing else, it will mean that producers will get their product to market at a time when the market thinks it is appropriate to receive it.

It was not that long ago that in another capacity I was dealing with business people from China. We talked about buying Canadian product,and in particular, agricultural product. Their complaint was not so much that the Canadian product was not of exceptional quality. They really do enjoy Canadian quality. It was not so much that the price was not right, because of course it was.

However, they said, “What is the use of us buying good quality at the right price if we cannot get it to our market?” If our railways cannot deliver their product to the port of Vancouver or Prince Rupert in a timely fashion, what is the purpose of them putting their ships out off the port, wasting time, costing them money and redoubling the expectation of the price they needed to pay in the first place?

Under those circumstances, it does not do them any good to buy Canadian product. They might as well look for it some place else, they said, not because the product is not any good, not because it does not get delivered to port, but because it does not get delivered when they need it.

Therefore, if there is one criticism about all this, it is not that the bill itself will not be capable of delivering what it purports to deliver, but it highlights the importance of having an infrastructure program that includes this relationship as well as the physical infrastructure that must be put in place and which guarantees that the fruition we expect from this bill will be brought to bear and materialize down the road.

Whether it is in the Pacific gateway, as we have come to know the development of an infrastructure for delivery outside of Canadian borders out west, whether it is an Atlantic gateway, in the event that we have minerals and other products that need to go through the Great Lakes and out through the Maritimes, or whether it is in fact the gateway at the central part of the continent through Ontario, Quebec and the Great Lakes, we need to have an extension of the bill and the principles which it tries to address through the physical infrastructure that can only result in the continued growth of the Canadian economy.

As I said earlier, the bill does not punish anybody. The bill is designed to bring parties together so that the wealth of Canada, which contributes to the positive side of the foreign relations ledger in foreign trade, is an opportunity to be realized to its maximum.

I know that all members of this party, the official opposition, will vote in support of this bill at third reading for all of those principles that I have so humbly put forward. I know that the government is going to be supportive of this. I think even my good colleagues from the Bloc are going to be delighted to support it. All other good members may, but I urge all Canadians to get behind this bill.

[Canada Marine Act, December 3rd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, it appears that even the Conservatives have started to be affected by the NDP habit of whining about the fact that we can recall history with accuracy, but even though I went to those committee hearings kicking and screaming, clearly I learned something about the importance of members of Parliament to serve their country through the House, the committees and debates such as these. Hopefully our words will be turned into action.

As I said to the parliamentary secretary not a moment ago, the difference between the previous government and the current one is that the previous government did not have an official opposition that appeared to have the interest of the Canadian public at heart, whereas the current government can rely on this official opposition to do all the things that are required to enhance the lives of all Canadians no matter where they live.

[Canada Marine Act, December 3rd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for reinforcing what the official opposition will do. We will support this bill for exactly the reasons that he stated. This bill brings forward some very valuable initiatives in terms of establishing ports that are going to meet the international competition and gain the businesses that we all want to see come to Canada.

It was not that long ago, when my colleague from Thunder Bay and I were brand new members here, that Thunder Bay was one of the most important inland ports in all of North America. I think it was actually number two in all of Canada. I now see it way down at number 16 in a list of 19. I do not say that to reflect negatively on Thunder Bay, but to give the House and all of our viewers an opportunity to understand what has happened to the dynamics of transportation in this country.

A port like Thunder Bay, which was absolutely crucial to the movement of grains and minerals not only through the Great Lakes but out to the Atlantic and out to the Pacific, has lost its premier place to the various ports out west, and there are five of them. I am sure the people of Thunder Bay would want to ensure that their port would have access to the funds and new dynamics to revitalize a place that used to be booming even in slow times.

My colleague from the Yukon knows that it is not only important to build a port structure that is capable of handling renewed traffic, but we need to be able to get goods, whether by rail or by road, to the port in order to use the port for access to international markets.

One of the reasons we developed the concept of a Pacific gateway is that the Chinese, to use just one example, used to ask us why we bothered selling them our wheat or our minerals if we cannot get them out of the port of Vancouver, and we can, we cannot even get them to the port. We had to build an infrastructure network that would bring all of our commodities out of the centre of the continent, whether that be Saskatchewan, Alberta, Manitoba, or northern Ontario, to one of the two gateways, the gateway out in the Pacific through an amalgamated port system in the Lower Mainland of British Columbia or Prince Rupert, or to revitalize the port structure in the Maritimes.

We missed a golden opportunity a few years ago to re-enhance the capacity of Halifax harbour to handle the giant ships that are coming on to the marketplace. We cannot miss too many of those opportunities. These kinds of initiatives would compel us to utilize some of our infrastructure moneys as well to feed a rail network and a road network to these places to stimulate growth and to develop an economy that goes beyond the minute minuscule economy and expand it to a regional and national one.

[Canada Marine Act, December 3rd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary is quite right to underscore the fact that it was initiated in 2003. If I have to go through the chronology for him, I am sure he will be delighted with that as well. However, I think what he was looking for was a compliment from me to him. I will give him that in a minute.

From 2003 to 2004, he will recall that we had an election at the beginning of the year and that his party, even immediately after the 2004 election, threatened to bring the government down again in the fall of 2004. They dilly-dallied and then finally pulled the string, as they say, in 2005, where we had other reports in the interim.

That did not prevent the government from putting forward legislation, as I indicated to him, Bill C-61, in order to implement this, but he will probably relish the fact that the government will enjoy the support of the official opposition on these fine initiatives. As I said, they are a renaissance compared to the ones that were there before in a way that the previous government could not rely on the official opposition. I think that would be the answer he is looking for.

[Canada Marine Act, December 3rd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to join in this debate, especially since the parliamentary secretary invited us to reflect upon credibility and leadership on the international front. Leadership and credibility is generated by not just some of the actions that are presented to us today for digestion, but by some of the consequences of other things that we do or do not do in life.

I want to refer back to that and take advantage of the fact that he is accompanied today by the Minister of International Trade. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs is here as well. Perhaps they will want to listen to what I say a little later on and reflect on it by way of a response.

I would like to continue in the other official language. Today, we have focused on the fact that there are bills and programs that are very important for Canada, for the entire nation. I was pleased and privileged to be a member of the government which introduced these programs and bills.

Perhaps other parties in this House, who today are complaining about the Conservative government, regret that we accomplished something important for Canadians.

I too am disappointed that my party is not in power. However, when we were in power, we accomplished things that are enabling this government to establish a much broader program.

What should the government be doing? I want to indicate from our side that we too feel that transportation issues are basic to the principles of country building, of nation building. I say that because we take this issue seriously. We have taken it seriously. We laid the groundwork to ensure we would have a network of transportation, of infrastructure that would permit this fabulous country to realize its fullest economic potential.

Those are not just words as the parliamentary secretary indicates. They are the basis upon which one builds programs. Ports, marine ports in particular, because that is what is being addressed by the legislation, are fundamental to an outreach that we must establish to the world everywhere if we are to develop trade that will enhance the opportunity of every Canadian man and woman to access the bounty that is resident in our natural resources and then to move that bounty across borders and oceans to markets that can utilize them for value added or indeed for direct consumption. They are basic to the infrastructure of Canada's economy.

What did we do? Members will be surprised. Being a veteran of this House as I am, you will recall, Mr. Speaker, that in 1995 we began to establish a coordination of all of the assets that we had in marine ports. In 1998 that resulted with the establishment of a Canadian network of marine ports and the legislation to mandate their establishment, to coordinate these sometimes divergent and sometimes even counterproductive divergencies in our marine ports.

That was followed up with a review in 2003 of that legislation to see how it worked. All good things need some time in order to jell. We know what happened. After 2003 there was a series of studies. I thank the parliamentary secretary for recognizing that these studies were done by the department at the behest of the government. It was not his government, but I thank him for acknowledging that nonetheless.

The thrust of those reviews was designed to ensure that we could make all these ports economically competitive and efficient in an environment that would see the global market changing literally on a daily basis. When we undertook the initial study, the concept of gateways, Pacific gateway, Atlantic gateway, central continental gateway in the Great Lakes, were things that were not even part of the language of the day. Also not a part of the language of the day was the absolutely booming business taking place on the west coast.

We had one port that was doing some business and others were not or not that much. Now we are talking about ports resident in British Columbia, whether they be in the North Fraser, Vancouver or Prince Rupert, or Nanaimo, or Port Alberni. All these ports are very much a key to the economies of the Orient, whether it is Southeast Asia or Northeast Asia. We have to ensure those economies ship all their goods into North America through our ports and to generate an economy through the infrastructure that feeds into those ports to make it much more efficient and capable for all those provinces that sit in the middle of our continent to get their goods and commodities out to market.

The same principles apply to the marine ports in Atlantic Canada. The government of the day, through its studies, assumed and deduced that we needed to make a greater investment in the coordination of these ports. The Liberals came up with something called Bill C-61. This is a resurrection of Bill C-61. I am pleased to witness the revival of all good things. The parliamentary secretary may see us supporting a bill that highlights those very important issues.

As I said, we need to reinforce those principles upon which good, sound transportation policy is built; that is, the movement of goods and people efficiently, swiftly and economically around the country and abroad.

We wanted to create, and I imagine that this bill proposes to do the same, a common purpose and to permit the development of a plan or of a vision for growth in this country. I did not hear the parliamentary secretary say that, but I am assuming that was his intention because that would certainly be the reason why we would support this bill.

We need it to establish an infrastructure that is cohesive and coherent. Too often that infrastructure is seen as localized to a particular port. However, we need to think in terms of the avenues of building, whether it be rail, whether it be air, or whether it be roads, that feed into all of these ports that are the final terminus for the movement of many of those goods that need to be advanced outward, and that speak of Canada and the productivity of its citizens. That is what this bill was supposed to do.

And so, we see in it, as the parliamentary secretary has indicated, portions that talk about governance because we want to have continuity. We want to have, on the board of governors of these port authorities, personnel who are experienced and expert in the local economy, but still consistent and at one with the national objectives of a federal government that is dedicated, that should be dedicated, to ensuring that these ports fulfill the needs of Canadians everywhere.

The governing structure is extremely important. However, it is important as well to ensure that those port authorities go beyond simply being able to draw revenues from the movement of goods. They must be an economic entity on their own and they need to have the authority to ensure that the assets which they manage are part and parcel of the governance structure of these port authorities. And that could be in land, it could be the improvements on the land, or it could be any of the other factors, for example, leases, whether they be short term or long term.

If anybody wanted to have some umbrage or some difference with the government on any of these, we would eliminate it right away if that were not included in the bill.

However, more important, it is the issue of having an understanding, that we wanted to bring forward, of giving port authorities the opportunity to access government programs that give those ports the opportunity to have some of the funds that are available either for the development of some security issues that have developed since 9/11 or indeed for any of the infrastructure programs that this current government has continued. They were introduced by the former Liberal government, again as I said, of which I was privileged to be a part, to ensure that these port authorities would be seen as a continuity, a continuum of the infrastructure of our country's economic asset and the network that brings people together and that brings goods to market.

The parliamentary secretary will probably wonder where we go on a question of credibility and leadership. The question of credibility is seen on what we do to enhance these. He talked about trade and international relations. Those things are not all done simply by the work that we do at each one of these ports, but by some of the other things that we do with respect to the way that we deal with people who come within our territories.

This is not a deviation from that principle, and I am glad that the parliamentary secretary introduced it. We have had the misfortune of witnessing various tragedies in this country over the course of the last several months. I think by now most people are familiar with the case of the tasering of the young man at Vancouver airport and how we missed an opportunity to be decisive, and to act swiftly to ensure that any injustices be immediately remedied.

Now we have a situation where the Government of Canada's image worldwide has suffered, so much so that the government of Poland has asked for an inquiry. These are part and parcel of the kind of infrastructure that draws people to our shores and drops people into our midst.

As a matter of fact, as I said, thank heavens for the representatives of the other ministries. Earlier today, the government of Italy called in Canada's ambassador to speak about a similar situation that took place on September 20 when an Italian citizen died in a jail in Quebec City. So far there has been no response from Quebec government nor the Quebec police but, worse, nor response from the Canadian government.

All that people want is an opportunity to be able to access continuity, to understand what happens when people deal with Canadians on a question of strong international leadership, but let our actions speak at least as loudly as our words. Let us at least give people a response.

Until recently, we hid behind the fact, for example, that there was no hard, fiscal infrastructure on ports and then we hid on the soft issues, that is to say, where we were not dealing with bricks and mortar, on the fact that there were competing jurisdictions. How do we deal with countries that want a response from us?

We could always say that it is not our problem, that it is the problem of other provinces, that it falls within others' jurisdiction. If we have the political will to put in place a bill such as the current Bill C-23, we must also have the same political will to do other things.

I would like to say a few words in Italian, if my colleagues are agreeable to it.

[Member spoke in Italian.]

[French]

I will repeat it in English.

It is inconceivable that we would not give an answer to a foreign government that asks us why one of its citizens met with such a fate here on Canadian territory. For example, the young gentleman who died on September 20, Castagnetta, did he or did he not suffer his fate at the hands of police that were using tasers? There was an autopsy done and there are no results yet. Why not?

Let us talk about leadership not only on the international front, not only on the transportation side, but a comprehensive leadership that understands where the government should be taking this country. Where it should be taking it is in the place that says that goods and people are moving efficiently and effectively in a competitive environment, but everyone is accorded the dignity that is accorded all human beings who come here and call this place home. Even visitors would have access to Canadian law and due process. It is inconceivable that a family would have to wait, so far, two and a half months for a response. It is incredible.

The government is not doing anything. Maybe it will act more swiftly on hard infrastructure issues like this one. I can tell the parliamentary secretary as the official spokesman for the party on this side of the House that Liberals are prepared to support these kinds of initiatives in Bill C-23, just as we are prepared to provide the kind of support that the government needs to project a positive image of our country abroad. Without that, all of us are working at cross purposes and that should not be the intention of any member of Parliament.

[Budget and Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2007, December 3rd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to what the member had to say. He comes from a city in a part of the country where the auto sector is very important.

I noted that he glossed over the fact that when we had a different government, the one he helped throw out of office, there was a contribution of some $500 million, which was welcomed by the auto sector and the auto worker unions because it was the first time in 20 years that there had been any investment in the auto sector by Canada.

That was followed up by the province contributing an additional $500 million. It was $1 billion, which I realize was not enough for the hon. member but it was a substantial amount of money, plus an additional $500 million in the aerospace industry.

I am wondering just what kind of numbers the hon. member thinks would be sufficient. This question is coming from someone who actually has done something about investment in the auto sector, rather than someone who has just critiqued it.

[Youth Criminal Justice Act, November 22nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I tried to follow the remarks of the honourable member. I think I understood that she would like reasonable and fair training for every individual, whether they are young people or adults. The role of training and educating individuals in our society falls under provincial jurisdiction.

Second, she would like to see a sharing of social and community values with all citizens, particularly with young people. In the past, training in those values was in the hands of the church. Today, we no longer accept the role of the church in the training of the community.

Finally, the member says that we must eradicate or eliminate poverty. The causes are economic and I know that there are political programs with economic aspects that are aimed at eliminating poverty.

However, I would like to ask her what alternatives the Bloc is offering to the bill introduced by the government that she and her Bloc colleagues supported against the Liberals.

[Canada Post Corporation Act, November 20th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I want to note that my hon. colleague from the Bloc stood up on a 20 minute defence of things that are canadiennes. That has got to be extraordinary for a sovereignist.

[Canada Post Corporation Act, November 20th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, if I may, I would like to answer the question in English so that I can be sure to use the right words to answer it properly.

That would be for the government to respond. Government members have said that they have gone out of their way to give the kinds of guarantees that only government can give.

I was in opposition when the then Conservative government of the day started to close down rural post offices everywhere around the country. In fact, it did not make that distinction. It closed down post offices in urban centres and in mine as well.

There was a transformation of Canada Post. Should Canada Post get greater income? There is no guarantee that income from these remailers will go directly to Canada Post. There is none. The previous questioner asked me what I would do with the jobs of the people who work for these remailers. We cannot give them any guarantees, just like we cannot give Canada Post a guarantee that the $45 million, $50 million or $60 million that is represented by these enterprises will go directly into its coffers.

The essence of international remailers' business is that mail intended for foreign destinations will not go to Canada Post. It will go someplace else. The businesses have every right to pursue a business someplace else. I cannot constrain, and I do not think anyone else here can, the current customers to go to Canada Post. Were that possible, we might be having a different discussion.

Does Canada Post need more money to deliver in rural communities? I do not know. The consolidated revenue statement says that it made $120 million net last year. It did not ask us for permission to spend that money to improve rural service. Why would it? Canada Post also admits that the market for letters is flat. If Canada Post does not have any clients, what is it going to do?

[Canada Post Corporation Act, November 20th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member. We work quite well together in committee.

There are two parts to his question. The first concerns my interpretation of what was decided in committee. I do not want to put words in his mouth. I do not want to offend the intentions of my colleague or other colleagues who are members of the committee.

As far as Canada Post is concerned, as I said in my presentation, it is not a matter of eliminating or reducing the service provided under its mandate in rural areas to individuals who want and need Canada Post service where they live.

The reality is that newer neighbourhoods do not get the same type of service—note that I said type of service—but they do get service.

The issue is not about these remailers having an influence over the development of Canada Post service.