EVIDENCE

Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities NUMBER 050 1st SESSION 39th PARLIAMENT Wednesday, May 9, 2007 Le mercredi 9 mai 2007 Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities CANADA [Recorded by Electronic Apparatus] EVIDENCE May 9, 2007 Committee Edited Evidence * Table of Contents * Number 050 (Official Version) Official Report * Table of Contents * Number 050 (Official Version) Témoignages * Table des matières * Numéro 050 (Version officielle) 50 09 05 2007 2007/05/09 15:30:00 House of Commons Comité permanent des transports, de l'infrastructure et des collectivités Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities TRAN Chair Mr.

Merv Tweed 39 1

(1535) [ English ] The Chair (Mr. Merv Tweed (Brandon—Souris, CPC)) : Thank you and good afternoon, everyone. Welcome to the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, meeting 50. The orders of the day, pursuant to Standing Order 108— Mr. Brian Jean (Fort McMurray—Athabasca, CPC) : I have a point of order. The Chair : Mr. Jean. Mr. Brian Jean : Mr. Chair, I'd like to move that as first order of business today the committee deal with Mr. Fast's motion and Mr. Volpe's amendment to the motion. I ask this on the basis that Mr.

Fast, who has been very patient with the committee and I think on three or four separate occasions has agreed to put his matter to the end or to another meeting, has another commitment he has to go to. As such, I would ask that we deal with this forthwith. The Chair : Monsieur Laframboise. [ Translation ] Mr. Mario Laframboise (Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, BQ) : Mr. Chairman, out of respect for the witnesses we have invited to appear today, we should have them speak during the first hour. We have received an agenda. Our witnesses arrived for the meeting at 3:30 p.m. They have taken their places.

I hope we will show respect for them and have them speak at the time we agreed upon. We will have sufficient time afterwards to debate Mr. Fast's motion. [ English ] The Chair : Mr. Julian. Mr. Peter Julian (Burnaby—New Westminster, NDP) : Yes, Mr. Chair, I'm speaking in the same sense as Monsieur Laframboise. This is a very complex issue. We have a court case decision that was rendered yesterday, as you well know, so this is not something that's going to take five minutes to discuss.

It would be inappropriate to have our witnesses wait an hour or an hour and a half as we work through what is a very complex motion on a very complex subject. The Chair : Mr. Volpe. Hon. Joseph Volpe (Eglinton—Lawrence, Lib.) : Well, I don't have any problems with the motion, provided that our witnesses are comfortable with the fact that they might have to wait an hour. We had only given them an hour, at any rate, so I'm cognizant of the committee's obligations to everybody. Not to be necessarily supportive of Mr.

Fast's agenda, but I want to reinforce something I said a week ago, which is that we wanted to deal with this and we were going to take only a half hour to do it. Now we're putting in an hour. So if Mr. Fast, as I understand it, has other parliamentary duties in about an hour, if our witnesses are okay, I think we should deal with it. The Chair : Are there any other comments? Mr. Peter Julian : Mr. Chair, we should just proceed as per the agenda. The Chair : Well, I do have a motion before us, so I know we would have to deal with that motion by Mr. Jean. Mr. Bell. Mr.

Don Bell (North Vancouver, Lib.) : When I said I'd like to hear from the witnesses, I meant—Obviously, I want to hear from the witnesses, but I'd like to hear from the witnesses whether, if we were to take a half an hour at this point— What is your schedule? We invited you here for this time. Are you able to wait a half an hour? Do you have other—? The Chair : Mr. Winter. Mr. Brock Winter (Senior Vice-President, Operations, Canadian Pacific Railway) : We can meet your schedule, whatever you feel. The Chair : So the motion on the floor by Mr. Jean is that we refer back to the motion by Mr.

Fast, and the amendment that would be on the floor by Mr. Volpe. (Motion agreed to) The Chair : With that, I will refer to Mr. Volpe, who had the floor on this issue at the time of the last adjournment, with his amendment. I apologize to the witnesses. You're welcome to stay and visit. We'll be as quick as the committee can do it. Mr. Volpe. Hon. Joseph Volpe : Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You have before you, as per my distribution, an amendment to Mr. Fast's motion, in both official languages. I'm not going to read it for you. The intent of that amendment to Mr.

Fast's motion is to give some pretty specific indications about what the minister can do and ought to do if this committee were to accept the motion. Specifically, it says: (1) that the minister has to present a directive for a change in the regulations in order to find consistency in the language that ensures a definition of “letter” is consistent; and (2) that the exclusive privilege relates to domestic letters; it does not deal with international remailers. I too have read the judgment of the other day.

I think the reason we're in a position where we're reading these judgments is precisely because we have not asked the government, the minister, to act in a way that is available for him to act. So while Mr. Fast says he would like the committee to give the minister some direction, I wanted to narrow it down and say, well, we've also done a little bit of homework, and this is the only way he can act in order to prevent the kinds of decisions on injunctions presented by the decision yesterday from putting all these businesses out of business and all of their employees out on the street.

If this committee is going to deliver a message, then it can do it in a prescriptive fashion, and that's the intent of my amendment. I'm hoping that Mr. Fast will accept this as a friendly amendment. The Chair : We'll go to Monsieur Laframboise. [ Translation ] Mr. Mario Laframboise : Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a great deal of difficulty with the message the committee is trying to send. I had the same problems during preceding discussions on Mr. Fast's motion, and I find I am having them again today with respect to the amendment tabled by Mr. Volpe.

We need to provide a brief background of the committee's business. I tabled a motion to have Canada Post, the Canadian Union of Postal Workers and International Remailers appear before the committee. You asked me not to put any questions on cases that were before the courts, and I agreed not to. You asked me not to put questions on negotiations in connection with the collective agreement between the Canadian Union of Postal Workers and Canada Post, and I agreed not to. I told you that if we had to discuss Mr.

Fast's motion, I would like to have remailers' representatives and Canada Post representatives appear before the committee again so that I could put the questions I wanted to put during the discussions on my motion, which was debated in committee. Today, every means possible are being brought to bear to change the agenda. According to the agenda, Canadian Pacific was to appear before Mr. Fast's motion is tabled. Mr. Chairman, I am trying to follow, but I have a great deal of difficulty when I find myself forced into a position where I cannot get to the bottom of things.

You will therefore understand that I will vote against the amendment tabled by Mr. Volpe, and against the motion tabled by Mr. Fast. Colleagues, I don't know whether this is the attitude you plan to have. I told you last time that I would not be obstructive, and I'm trying very hard not to be obstructive and not to stretch my comments out until 5:30. For those who don't know me, I should point out that I have already done so in a different Parliament. I can talk for hours and hours on a motion without ever repeating myself. It's fun for me.

I'm not doing it today, but I hope you do understand that I have a great deal of difficulty with the fact that you're trying every way you can to distort the agenda and force me to accept things I do not wish to accept. I have had the same goal from the very start, to engage in transparent debate. That is why I would have liked Canada Post and the remailers' representatives to appear. I will stop here this time, but I hope you don't make a habit of this. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (1540) [ English ] The Chair : We'll have Mr. Julian. [ Translation ] Mr. Peter Julian : Mr.

Chairman, I'm very disappointed that the Conservatives have tried to change the agenda. It has often been said, every time Mr. Fast brought the issue back, that we hadn't done our homework. Mr. Laframboise said that Canada Post and the remailers' representatives should come back before the committee comes to a decision.

There is no rationale for changing the agenda without respect for committee procedure and committee members, who have clearly indicated they need more information and wish to ask more questions before making the decision. [ English ] To have the agenda thrown aside, as the Conservatives have done today, doesn't augur well, quite frankly, Mr. Chair, for future committee work.

If that's the attitude this government is going to take towards members of the opposition who are simply trying to do their due diligence, it really speaks to how little respect and what little regard this government has for other members of the committee. We'll see how that plays out in the future. Here we have, very clearly, a motion that was drafted prior to a court decision that came down yesterday, which I don't believe any members of the Conservative government have actually read, that has an impact on the decisions we make today. We haven't done the due diligence.

We haven't invited witnesses to come back before the committee to look at the implications of this motion. I know that Mr. Volpe is trying to be helpful with his amendments, but we don't know what the implications are. And now we're going to try to race forward and ram this through without any due regard for what the implication is for universal postal service and for postal service in rural areas. If members of the Conservative Party are ready to sacrifice their own constituents, without understanding the implications of their gesture, that's their decision.

I do not believe that this is a helpful precedent at all. I think, Mr. Chair, that this turns the committee from one in which we've had, up until now, a relationship of cooperation, generally, to one in which we will have a relationship of confrontation. If the Conservatives want to change how this committee works, they're going to have to understand that there are consequences that come from changing how the committee works. This is completely unacceptable, Mr. Chair. It is irresponsible, I believe. The requests from Mr. Laframboise and me have been modest but important and responsible.

For the Conservatives on this committee to simply sweep that aside is signalling what I fear is going to be a real degradation in the working relationships we have around this table. The Chair : Mr. Jean. Mr. Brian Jean : Mr. Fast put this motion forward more than six meetings ago and has agreed by himself to put it back and deal with it. This is not about tricks. This motion was going to come forward in an hour anyway. Mr. Fast has said he is not able to do it in an hour, which means it would be seven meetings. This motion at the very most keeps the situation the same way it has been for the last 20 to 30 years.

That is all this motion does—it keeps the status quo. That's all I would like to say.

(1545) Mr. Peter Julian : Court decision. Mr. Brian Jean : I read it. The Chair : Monsieur Bélanger. Hon. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.) : 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.

(1550) 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. The Chair : Thank you. Mr. Volpe. Hon. Joseph Volpe : 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. Mr. Ed Fast : It's a friendly amendment. Hon. Joseph Volpe : 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.

(1555) 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.

(1600) The Chair : 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. Mr. Peter Julian : 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. The Chair : I'm advised that it's not an admissible motion. The question I would ask you is this. Are you moving to adjourn debate? Mr. Peter Julian : No, I'm moving to table. It is— The Clerk of the Committee (Mr.

Mark D'Amore) : It doesn't exist in Canadian parliamentary procedure. Mr. Peter Julian : We've used it at this committee. The Chair : We adjourn debate. Mr. Peter Julian : 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— Hon. Mauril Bélanger : 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? The Chair : 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. Hon. Mauril Bélanger : 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? The Chair : 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? A voice: No. The Chair: I'm sorry, from Mr. Fast, which just passed. Hon. Mauril Bélanger : No, it didn't pass The Chair : No, the date passed. This brings us back to the original motion with the amendment that has been proposed by Mr. Volpe. Hon.

Mauril Bélanger : 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.

(1605) The Chair : Mr. Julian, on a point of order. Mr. Peter Julian : Mr. Chair, I believe Mr. Bélanger is absolutely correct. I seconded his motion, and it was not that way. The Chair : If the committee will be patient for one minute, I will get a ruling with some assistance from the clerk. I'm going to suspend for a couple of minutes to get the information. The Chair : I might need your undivided attention on this one, committee members, so that we have a full understanding of it. On April 30, Mr. Fast moved that the consideration of his motion be moved to Wednesday, May 2. At that time, Mr.

Bélanger amended this by replacing the words “to the meeting on Wednesday, May 2” with the words “until such time as the Minister has come forward with his report on the matter of remailers”. Because the timeframe has moved past May 2, it makes both Mr. Fast's motion and Mr. Bélanger's amendment moot. If you're interested, what you can do is make—Would it be an amendment to the motion? It would be a dilatory motion with the same words. Basically the time has moved past the dates that were set out and established by the motion and the amendment; therefore the motion and the amendment are no longer valid. Mr.

Bélanger.

(1610) Hon. Mauril Bélanger : To clarify, I gather that you've accepted the motion from Mr. Volpe as an amendment. The Chair : We are debating Mr. Volpe's amendment. Hon. Mauril Bélanger : I would argue that the amendment that I put forward to Mr. Fast's motion to defer was in order at the time. Was it not? The Chair : Yes. Hon. Mauril Bélanger : The time has not passed for that amendment, because the minister has still not reported. The Chair : The motion and the amendment were made on April 30, and the date passed on May 2.

I know you have amended it and taken that out, but if I understand it correctly, neither the motion nor the amendment are valid because of the timeline. You would have to make a motion. Hon. Mauril Bélanger : I understand that, and I can do that—a motion to defer is fairly well in order all the time—but I have to understand your reasoning here. Given that the time has passed, I can understand that the motion is no longer in order—absolutely. Otherwise we'd be going back in time, which is not feasible, at least not that we're aware of. However, the other one has not passed. The minister has not yet reported.

The amendment did not have a date. It said until such time as the minister has reported. How can you declare that caduque ? It's still very much in play. The Chair : Again, it is my understanding that because Mr. Fast's motion of April 30 has passed that date, the motion and the amendment are no longer valid. If there's no motion, then the amendment also becomes moot. Mr. Julian. Mr. Peter Julian : Mr. Chair, the motion very clearly called for a date—a reporting back by the minister—which has not been superseded by events. So Mr. Bélanger is absolutely right that the motion is in order.

That is what is still to be discussed. If the motion were defeated, you're right in saying that the main motion would have been superseded by the date change. But that presumes that the committee has turned down the amendment. The committee has not made that decision yet. Mr. Bélanger is absolutely right in maintaining that the amendment is still on the floor and still subject to discussion. That's where we were when we left off debate on this point. Monsieur Bélanger is absolutely correct on that. The Chair : Well, the chair would disagree with you, Mr. Julian. I would suggest that the motion Mr.

Fast made became obsolete, therefore making the amendment obsolete. You do have the ability to challenge the ruling of the chair, but I'm relying on experience and also on some direction from the clerk. Mr. Jean. Mr. Brian Jean : I was going to make that point. We have a ruling from the chair. Mr. Julian has the prerogative to challenge that if he wishes to do so, and to deal with the consequences, but we had a motion to deal with this particular issue and we want to, as a committee. I think the ruling of the chair would stand. The Chair : Mr.

Bélanger, I will suggest that you have the ability to make a dilatory motion. Hon. Mauril Bélanger : Mr. Chairman, I'll accept your argument that since the main motion is no longer able to be considered the amendment will lapse as well. I'll buy into that. There may be some fine points that would challenge it, but I won't. Nonetheless, I think it is something the committee ought to consider. I'm prepared to move that Mr. Fast's motion and the amendment be deferred until such time as the minister has reported, as promised, on the matter of remailers. The Chair : Mr. Julian. Mr.

Peter Julian : I second that motion, Mr. Chair, for the even more compelling reason that we now have a court judgment from yesterday that has been added to the mix and the discussion on this issue, since the original motion was moved and since the amendment was moved.

This committee has to take into consideration that court document, which talks very specifically about the impact in rural areas, and talks about the relatively low cost of providing universal postal services to the urban population, the population that lives within 150 kilometres of the southern border with the United States, and that issue offsetting services that are of a higher cost to more remote communities, like those that members of the Conservative Party represent. There are very clear impacts on rural communities.

So rather than running forward, hell-bent, to adopt a motion when the due diligence has not been done, when the responsibility has not been shown, and when legitimate questions have been raised by Mr. Bélanger as well as by Monsieur Laframboise, Monsieur Carrier, and myself, those issues of what the impact of this decision would be should be taken into consideration. Very clearly, when you had a court decision yesterday, this Conservative push to try to ram the motion through doesn't make sense. We raised it.

We said very clearly that we needed more information, that the Conservatives were not aware of the implications of what they were trying to do and that there were questions that needed to be asked of Canada Post and remailers, and the Conservatives have consistently refused to do the due diligence, consistently refused to have those witnesses brought back so that the committee could make a decision that's based on substance and on actually understanding the impact. Now, no member of the Conservative Party has actually raised the court judgment and what the impact of that would be.

One member said that he had read the judgment. That's wonderful. That should raise questions in his mind, as it should raise questions in all of our minds, that it is premature to ram this motion through and it is premature to try to push forward with a motion that has implications, potentially, for rural communities across the country. We need to do that due diligence. Mr. Bélanger's motion, I think, is a very effective one, allowing this committee to do its due diligence before it starts running after motions that have what could be considered to be perverse impacts, Mr. Chair.

A perverse impact is an impact that is unforeseen. A perverse impact is one that members may not have considered when they pushed this forward. And since they're not aware of what the possible implications are and not aware of the possible implications of this extensive court judgment that refers specifically to rural postal delivery, it makes sense that the committee would take the time to do the due diligence and give it the consideration it needs. We also have our witnesses before us today. We warned members of the Conservative Party that it would be better to hear the witnesses first.

My hope is that we would simply adopt this motion and move on to hearing our witnesses on this important railway inquiry that Mr. Bell initiated. We're now losing half of this allotted timeframe around this motion. I'm sure Mr. Bell is as concerned as I am that we are spending time considering a motion without having done our due diligence, when we should be looking at the railway inquiry and the implications, particularly for British Columbia. I know Mr. Bell shares my concern about that. That's why he initiated this inquiry. I'm hoping, Mr.

Chair, that we will defer this and take the time to do the due diligence that has been requested by members from three parties around this table, so that the eventual decision we take will be the right one.

(1615) The Chair : Monsieur Carrier. [ Translation ] Mr. Robert Carrier (Alfred-Pellan, BQ) : Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to join in with those who say that our parliamentary privilege is obviously violated when we are presented with a motion about which we are not adequately informed. We avoided questioning witnesses from Canada Post or from the postal workers' union about this issue, because of the labour dispute going on at the time. We had no clear idea of the consequences of the decision that we would have to make.

I would like the remailers to describe the impact of a decision that we might have to make due to this motion. I would also like to know what Canada Post intends to do with legislation that grants it exclusive privileges, as confirmed by the Ontario Court of Appeal. I know that this is not the Quebec Court of Appeal, but I think that the Ontario Court is equally important. Given all this, I can hardly go along with a motion that goes against a decision made by the Court of Appeal. I think that we could reasonably delay adopting the motion so that we can hear witnesses and clarify the issue.

Let me raise another issue. Earlier, it was suggested that we should hear the witnesses a half an hour later than scheduled. I note that we have been discussing for nearly an hour. I think that we should wrap up the discussion and make our decision later after taking time to reflect. (1620) [ English ] The Chair : Thank you, Mr. Carrier. Mr. Bell. Mr. Don Bell : Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'd like to get now, as soon as possible, to the CP Rail witnesses; that's how we were to start this meeting, and its purpose.

But on this issue I have to say--and I may have a difference of opinion here with some of my colleagues—that I have supported the issue. I believe, having listened to the material— I have read the court decision. I have read the letter from CUPW. Generally I have a record of supporting legislation that protects the right of workers. But I don't see this issue as being about the rights of workers. I see it as being about the rights of Canada Post, in this case the question of who delivers what part of the mail.

And I understand there's a difference in the definition and the wording between the English and French versions as to exclusive privilege and what that means. Having looked at the issue and the facts behind it, that for 17 years, by court acknowledgment, since 1990, CP was aware of this situation—for at least 15 of those years, it looks like, they took no action on it—my belief is that before we stand back and allow the court decisions to in fact allow existing private remailers to be put out of business, we should express an opinion.

I understand the rulings and the explanation here, that by allowing Canada Post to have the more profitable business it allows it to subsidize the less profitable business. But it's already making a good profit, and this is something that has been happening for years. You know, the recent court judgments may precipitate—My concern is Canada Post taking immediate action against the remailer now.

I'm prepared to have a full discussion on the remailer issue, as I hear from my colleagues, but I don't want to practically have irreversible action taken—because once the company is dismantled, it's not going to rebuild--that would adversely affect a situation that CP has known about, as they've acknowledged, since at least 1990. I think it's premature to ram through a change, if you want to call it that, in the remailing structure that's been there for 20-plus years.

The perverse impact that's referred to would be to change the current reality or the current status quo by not indicating our possible position, in this case my position, to the minister, to Canada Post, and to the government regarding private remailers. So I am prepared to support the amendment, and the amended motion that would come, in Mr. Volpe's motion. In doing so I think we would maintain the current status quo and then we could still get the report from the minister and have a subsequent report if we wanted to change that position.

But by passing the motion where it is now, we allow the current situation to carry on. The Chair : Thank you, Mr. Bell. Just for clarification, the motion that Monsieur Bélanger has put forward—please correct me if I have it wrong—is that the matter before us, dealing with the past motion and amendments, be deferred until such time as the minister has come forward with this report on the matter of remailers. Is that correct? I'm just talking about your original motion. Hon. Mauril Bélanger : I did say in there “as promised”, I believe. The Chair : Well, if you did, I'll add it.

I want to make sure the committee is clear what the question is. Mr. Jean. Mr. Brian Jean : I don't know what Mr. Bélanger is referring to as a report that was promised. My understanding is that the minister confirmed he was going to look into the matter and make a decision on the matter. Unless he has it in front of him, I'd like to hear what exactly he says and if he refers to a report, and in what instance he's referring to it. The Chair : Monsieur Bélanger. Hon. Mauril Bélanger : Mr.

Chairman, before I do that, I think we need to understand that the profitability of Canada Post is not in question here, but the ability of Canada Post to use these profits to subsidize first-class mail is. The cross-subsidization that Canada Post is allowed to do is restricted, limited; therefore, if the profits come from non-mail business, it may not be allowed to use those profits to subsidize first-class mail and vice versa.

There are some severe and strict restrictions imposed on Canada Post by the Government of Canada regarding how it can use profits driven by certain profit centres and apply them to other services it is obliged to deliver. So we have to be very careful there, because there are a number of court cases going on in that. I believe United Parcel Service has been trying to rake Canada Post over the coals on this one, because they believe their parcel division is being cross-subsidized and so forth. So for my colleague, Mr.

Bell, I think we have to be very careful here when we—as I thought he was doing—claim that Canada Post's profitability can be a reason why we don't have to worry about the universal obligation of delivering first-class mail at a similar cost across the country. But in answer to Mr. Jean's question, here are the words of the minister as reported in Hansard of May 16. This is what I was referring to when I first spoke. I'd have to go back to the very day of the question and the answer of the minister to get the precise question and total answer, but here is what Mr.

McKay says the minister gave as an answer to his question: It is a very important subject. I have received representation not only from members opposite but also members of our political party. We are looking at the issue now and we will be taking note not only of the issue, but we will be advising the House as to what we want to do in the coming days. Therefore, there's a commitment from the minister to advise the House as to what it is the government is intending to do with remailers. I can't quote—

(1625) The Chair : Mr. Storseth, on a point of order. Mr. Brian Storseth (Westlock—St. Paul, CPC) : Sorry, I don't mean to interrupt, Mr. Bélanger. I just want to clarify for myself that this is something that Mr. McKay said that the minister— Hon. Mauril Bélanger : No, it's something Mr. McKay is quoting the minister as having said in answer to a question. Mr. Ed Fast : Oh, it's hearsay. It's not a point of order. Hon. Mauril Bélanger : No, it's not hearsay. It is— Mr. Ed Fast : It's hearsay. Hon. Mauril Bélanger : Well, then, I'll read the entire report of Hansard of Tuesday, May 16, if you wish, Mr.

Fast, so that you'll see it's not hearsay, because it's the only one I have here. I'll read this. This is Mr. McKay speaking: Mr. Speaker, a couple of weeks ago I asked the following question of the Minister of Transport: Mr. Speaker, the minister will know that Canada Post is pursuing injunctions against a number of small Canadian businesses that are in the business of international remailing, some of which have been in the business for 20 years. Thousands of employees will lose their jobs, hundreds of businesses will close and Canada will lose $150 million in business.

What will it be: monopolistic abuses by Canada Post or vigorous competition from small business? Will the minister use his authority under the Financial Administration Act and tell Canada Post to withdraw its assault on small business? The answer was as follows: —it is a very important subject. I have received representation not only from members opposite but also members of our political party. We are looking at the issue now and we will be taking note not only of the issue, but we will be advising the House as to what we want to do in the coming days. He goes on. Let me quote Mr. Brian Jean. A voice: Excellent.

Hon. Mauril Bélanger: Yes, I thought so too. Mr. Chair, this is also on May 16, 2006, in the adjournment debate. Hon. Joseph Volpe : May I interrupt on a point of order, just to keep me on track here, please? We are still discussing Mr. Bélanger's motion—is that it? We're not talking about my motion? The Chair : We're talking about a dilatory motion put forward by Mr. Bélanger that says the matter currently dealing with the past motion and amendment be deferred until such time as the minister has come forward with his report on the matter of remailers, as promised. Hon. Mauril Bélanger : So, this is Mr.

Brian Jean on May 16, 2006, in response to the comments from Mr. McKay , member from Scarborough—Guildwood: Mr. Speaker, I am wondering why the member, when he was sitting on the government side just months ago, did not do something about this issue. The Ontario Court of Appeal came out with a judgment over a year ago. I am wondering why, if he had the opportunity to do so, he did not. I currently own three small businesses. I have run three or four others in the past, and I can tell the member that there are competing interests. We are taking this seriously because it is a very important issue.

On another point, I can assure the House that we are not going to take any lessons at all from the Liberals on how to run a business or how to run a government effectively in the best interests of Canadians. I am hopeful the member is not suggesting that we ignore the court decisions that have been rendered, including the Ontario Court of Appeal. I am certain it is not his wish that this government should ignore the courts. I am happy to rise today on the issue of international remailing. I can assure everyone that this is a very important issue to this government.

That is why we were taking some time to make an appropriate decision which will be in the best interests of Canadians, having regard to the universal postal service that all Canadians have come to love and enjoy. Canadians receive and send mail all over the country for a mere 51¢, whether it be one block or 1,000 miles, by ferry or by other means of transportation. This government cares about rural, urban, and remote Canadian communities. That is why the minister will make a decision that is in the best interests of Canadians.

Canada's geography, low population density, outlying isolated communities, populations and climate provide, quite frankly, a larger challenge to Canada Post than other countries. In fact, I suggest that we have more challenges than any other nation's post office both in relation to delivery and also in regard to the environment, and other issues that are hot topics today. Despite these challenges, Canada Post, an arm's-length corporation, which means in essence that we are not supposed to deal with its day-to-day operations, has a 96% on-time delivery of mail. What a great record to brag about for Canada Post.

Indeed, when we look at the entire world, Canada has one of the lowest domestic rates for any mail in the world. That speaks volumes about the quality of service. We do this without receiving any tax benefits or funding from Canadian taxpayers. This is done on a profitable basis. As a result, we have to take a look at what takes place. Most importantly, we have a universal delivery service, which means that we cannot always deliver for 51¢. Obviously, a letter from here to Fort Chipewyan is going to cost more than 51¢ to deliver. This is Mr.

Jean speaking here, still: As a result of that, we have to look at universal delivery, which includes what the courts have put forward as a jurisdiction that is within Canada Post's mandate. That jurisdiction means that it has the right for not only domestic mail but also international mail. I think it's worth repeating that sentence: That jurisdiction means that it has the right for not only domestic mail but also international mail. The court has found that, and I am certain my friend does not want this government to ignore our courts.

We are aware, and many Canadians do not know this, that these international remailers are actually subsidiaries or associated with large foreign postal services. I have to reread this one: We are aware, and many Canadians do not know this, that these international remailers are actually subsidiaries or associated with large foreign postal services. Indeed, these remailers employ Canadians, but Canada Post, of course, as everybody in the House knows, is the sixth largest employer of Canadians in Canada.

These remailers actually collect the mail in bulk, ship it out of the country and then mail it locally at cheaper rates because there are cheaper rates available to them through foreign post offices. These— And then the Deputy Speaker interrupted, a most eloquent interruption: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but his four minutes have expired. The hon. member for Scarborough—Guildwood. Shall I continue, Mr. Chair?

(1630) Hon. Joseph Volpe : I think we get the point. The Chair : Mr. Bell, on a point of order. An hon. member: Shame on you, Mauril. Mr. Don Bell : Mr. Chair, whatever steps we need to take to listen to CP Rail, we should do so now. We've given over an hour to this. I do not agree. I want to go to CP Rail now. Mr. Peter Julian : Defer it. An hon. member: Your guy's filibustering this. Mr. Don Bell : Excuse me. I'm simply saying, Mr. Chair, we've invited these witnesses here, they've kindly deferred their time for one hour, and we should now proceed with them. Does that require a motion of some kind from me?

I'm prepared to make it, whatever it is. Do you want a motion to defer it for one week? I'm not going to wait for the minister to report, but I'll agree for a deferral for a week. The Chair : We are actually debating a motion right now to defer. Mr. Don Bell : Can I call for the question on that motion? The Chair : No, you can't call the vote, but I'm hoping— Mr. Don Bell : Can I suggest that we interrupt the debate on the motion and start hearing our witnesses? Hon. Mauril Bélanger : Mr. Chairman, I may have a suggestion. If you seek it, you might find unanimous consent to proceed to hearing our witnesses.

You may or you may not, but if you sought it, you might find it. In terms of willingness to cooperate, I certainly would agree to that.

(1635) Mr. Ed Fast (Abbotsford, CPC) : Are you prepared to do so upon the condition that with five minutes left to go, we'll vote on this motion? Hon. Mauril Bélanger : No. Mr. Ed Fast : Of course not; you just want to filibuster. Hon. Mauril Bélanger : No, I don't want to filibuster. Mr. Ed Fast : You're anti-democratic, that's what you are. You just don't want the will of this committee to prevail. The Chair : Mr. Volpe has a point of order. Hon. Joseph Volpe : I think everybody understands where we want to go on this. I'm not for taunting anybody to do anything.

We have a motion on the floor; it's a dilatory motion. I'm going to ask you to find ways to deal with it as expeditiously as possible and then I'm going ask you to find ways as expeditiously as possible to vote on my motion, because I would like to see what the will of the committee might be on it. I'd like you to move along with the committee's business. There are going to be occasions on which people disagree, and that's fine, but disagreement shouldn't stand in the way of our getting on with our jobs. Hon. Mauril Bélanger : Mr.

Chairman, if there's unanimous will, I am prepared to accept flipping this around and going to our witnesses right now. I thought we were going to hear our witnesses first, and I'm quite prepared to do that if it's the will of the committee. That shows some good will; but if it's only if the will of others is accepted, then we may have a difference of opinion. The Chair : The motion on the floor to defer, Mr. Bélanger, is a debatable motion until debate ends. At that point I will call a vote. If the debate has terminated, I will call a vote to defer; if not, the floor is open.

If there's no one else left to speak on this, I will call the question; if not, the floor is open. Go ahead, Mr. Julian. Hon. Mauril Bélanger : On a point of order, I was hoping you could perhaps seek unanimous consent to move on immediately to hear witnesses and leave this whole thing in abeyance right now. Mr. Peter Julian : Mr. Bélanger hasn't finished. Mr. Brian Storseth : Excuse me, Mr. Chair, I have a point of order. I don't understand how Mr. Bélanger, who has the floor, can call a point of order on himself.

He's either calling a motion or he's not, but he can't call a point of order to interject on himself. Hon. Mauril Bélanger : I don't have the floor. Mr. Julian has the floor. The Chair : The motion by Mr. Bélanger is on the floor. As long as there is debate on this motion, the floor will remain open, and we will debate it until the committee decides they no longer want to debate it and vote on the motion. There is no procedural interference that I can come forward with to prevent that from happening. The floor is open. If there is no more debate, I'll call the question. Go ahead, Mr. Jean. Mr.

Brian Jean : I have a question to clarify, Mr. Chair. Once this particular motion is dealt with by way of a vote, either yea or nay, do we then get on to the point of again debating Mr. Volpe's motion? The Chair : We refer back to Mr. Volpe's amendment. Mr. Brian Jean : We have three kicks at it. The Chair : Seeing no further debate— Hon. Mauril Bélanger : To vote to defer it—you're not seeking if there's unanimous consent, are you? The Chair : I can ask. Is there unanimous consent to hear the witnesses and defer the debate? Let me be clear.

I'm asking if there's unanimous consent to defer debate to hear the witnesses for one hour, and then we will come back to this debate until the debate is finalized or until there's a motion that's acceptable unanimously to adjourn. Mr. Volpe has a comment. Hon. Joseph Volpe : You know that we're going to be called to votes in 40 minutes. So unless everybody around the table is prepared to skip those votes, this is not a tenable position.

I'm cognizant of the fact that the people from Canadian Pacific—I think they still have the word “Canadian” in their system—have come here and have been patient, but they've now had their time reduced by at least ten minutes and are likely to get it reduced even more. Short of being inhospitable, I guess I'm going to say that we either deal with this—This is the second time I've brought this motion forward. I want my motion dealt with, so I want to move in the direction that gets to it. We've dealt with this motion to defer and to reverse. We did that with a vote at the beginning of the meeting.

I don't want to be a party to decisions that ask for the same vote in different ways. So we're already dealing with this. We're dealing with Mr. Bélanger's motion to defer to whenever. So I'm going to go back to what I said earlier: deal with that motion and find a way to have us vote on it, because it's going to come to a vote. Then I'd like to deal with my motion.

(1640) The Chair : Well, I would advise the committee again that if there's no further debate, we will call the vote on Mr. Bélanger's motion. The current rule that exists is that as long as that motion is open and on the floor, it supersedes the bell call for the vote in the House and we stay here until such time as it is determined, unless we have unanimous consent of the committee to adjourn debate. Hon. Joseph Volpe : Well, I can't give it to you. The Chair : And I can't either. Go ahead, Mr. Julian. Mr. Peter Julian : Mr. Chair, I believe that you did get unanimous consent to move to our witnesses.

The Chair : I was asking the question, and Mr. Volpe brought in a point of order. I will ask the question again. Is there unanimous consent to defer? Seeing none, the floor is open. Is there further debate? Mr. Julian. Mr. Peter Julian : Mr. Chair, this is absolutely absurd, because the Conservatives aren't aware of the implications of what they're putting forward. They are not aware of the implications of the motion they're putting forward, and they compound it now by switching off our witnesses— The Chair : Mr. Julian, I have to advise you that we are still debating Mr. Bélanger's motion to defer. Mr.

Peter Julian : Yes, and, Mr. Chair, the motion of deferral is the only way out of this. We defer the discussion. If Mr. Fast is really concerned about the motion, really concerned about having due appreciation, he can put forward the witnesses. And I'm sure that at all four corners of this table you have support to get those witnesses here so we can ask them the appropriate questions about what the impact is on rural service delivery and what the impact is of the court judgment yesterday. So all the Conservatives have to do, if they want to have this motion discussed responsibly, is put forward the witness list.

We've been waiting for six weeks, and they refuse to do that. All they have to do is do their due diligence, put forward the witness list so we can do the appropriate due diligence, the appropriate homework, and then have consideration of the motion. But they're putting the cart before the horse. They want the motion to go through, regardless of what the implications are. The facts, as established by the Ontario Court of Appeal, are pretty compelling. The facts as established state that Canada Post is a crown corporation— The Chair : Mr. Fast, on a point of order. Mr. Ed Fast : Is Mr.

Julian debating his own point of order? I believe he said point of order. Is he debating Mr. Bélanger's deferral motion, a dilatory motion? What is he speaking to, for clarification? Mr. Peter Julian : I'm on the speakers list speaking to Mr. Bélanger's motion. The Chair : Mr. Julian is on the floor speaking to Mr. Bélanger's motion to defer. And I would just ask all committee members to be as on target as possible with the issue we're discussing. Mr.

Peter Julian : The Ontario Court of Appeal decision states that: Canada Post is a Crown corporation established to provide universal mail service in Canada—a lightly populated, but geographically vast country. CP is required to provide mail service to all points in Canada, however remote, at reasonable cost, but in a financially viable way. CP charges a uniform rate for its various classes of service. This uniform rate has been a tradition of the Canadian postal administration since it began and remains a core component of CP's system.

The Chair : Mr. Jean, on a point of order. Mr. Brian Jean : We are discussing the deferral motion, and I think I would just ask that you refer to it in your comments to make it relevant. Mr. Peter Julian : Thank you, Mr. Chair. The relevancy is this decision from yesterday. Obviously it provides an additional reason for this committee to defer this discussion, because we have implications of the court decision and implications of messing with the system without having done our due diligence and trying to ram through a motion if this deferral motion is defeated.

(1645) The Chair : Mr. Jean, on a point of order. Mr. Brian Jean : On the same point of order, Mr. Chair, I would suggest that the relevance would be in relation to the amendment, not the deferral. If he wants to argue about the deferral, let's get on with the vote Mr. Bélanger has called and deal with the relevance under the relevance

section it should be dealt with, which is not this. The Chair : Again, I will just advise all committee members that we are discussing the motion to defer. Mr. Peter Julian : Yes. Mr. Chair, as Mr. Jean well knows, I'm speaking very directly to that. The Chair : Again, I will advise all to speak on the motion of deferment, not on the amendment to the motion or the main motion. We are talking about the deferral of the current amendment. Mr. Peter Julian : Thank you, Mr. Chair. So we need to defer this discussion because of the implications. I will read three paragraphs. I'm almost finished one, and if Mr.

Jean stops interrupting me I'll be able to finish those three paragraphs and complete my point. “This uniform rate has been a tradition of the Canadian postal administration since it began, and remains a core component of Canada Post”— The Chair : Mr. Jean, on a point of order. Mr. Brian Jean : Marleau and Montpetit are very clear that the chair has discretion in relation to relevance, and this is not relevant to a deferral motion. It is relevant, and I would agree with you it would be relevant, to the issue of the amendments themselves. Mr. Peter Julian : Mr. Chair. The Chair : I am going to ask Mr.

Julian to please speak directly to the deferral motion. Whether it's a point of order or not, I do think that you have to speak directly to the deferral motion, not to the amendment or the original motion. Mr. Peter Julian : Mr. Chair, I am speaking very directly to the deferral motion. What I am doing is indicating what the possible consequences would be of taking action without doing due diligence.

Since there are consequences to taking action on rural service delivery, for example, as the Ontario Court of Appeal has pointed out, by taking action that is not responsible, not providing for due diligence, not having the witnesses before us who we have requested, not providing for a deferral means that we are taking a hasty decision that has potentially perverse consequences. I will continue to read this. If Mr. Jean would prefer to hear my voice rather than the court documents, that is his choice, but please allow me to read the two other paragraphs. Mr. Ed Fast : Point of order, Mr. Chair. The Chair : Mr.

Fast, on a point of order. Mr. Ed Fast : Just to expedite the process here, perhaps we could release the witnesses. It's clear Mr. Julian is intent on filibustering my motion and the amendment that Mr. Volpe has made. So since he's so intent on filibustering, why don't we just let the witnesses go? I'd like to hear the witnesses for a full hour when we have a fulsome opportunity to ask questions of them. And given the fact that this fairly straightforward motion, which will protect thousands of jobs, appears to have run into some obstacles on Mr.

Julian's part and he's intent on filibustering, let's just extend a courtesy to the witnesses and let them go. We'll bring them back another day. Mr. Brian Jean : On the same point of order, Mr. Chair. The Chair : Mr. Jean. Mr. Brian Jean : I would just like to inform the committee that the government side would be prepared to reconvene at a time that would be convenient for these gentlemen to hear their testimony. I think that would be fair in the circumstances. The Chair : Mr. Laframboise, on the same point of order. [ Translation ] Mr.

Mario Laframboise : Regarding the same point of order, I just want the witnesses to know that we have scheduled them for the first hour. The Conservatives were the ones who decided to table a motion to delay hearing the witnesses. I think that it would be fair to dismiss the witnesses and invite them to come back at another meeting, if only to show them due respect. [ English ] The Chair : Mr. Bell. Mr. Don Bell : I asked my staff just to speak with the witnesses to find out if they would be available, for example, next week, and I understand they're not.

We need to get on with this rail safety before we end up closing for the summer and to be in a position to report. So I'm prepared to have an extra meeting if that's necessary at a time convenient to them. It could be next Thursday, for example; it could be next Tuesday. I don't know what our

schedule is, but perhaps the chair could organize something if the committee is agreeable to that. If they're not available Wednesday, is there another day? Mr. Chairman, just to give notice, on Monday I'm going to be in Vancouver as an observer at the rail panel hearing that's taking place in Vancouver. So other than Monday, I would be available.

(1650) The Chair : Well, in the fact that we had originally talked about an hour to interview our guests today, I would regretfully say that we're not going to get that hour today. Through my office and through the clerk, we will accommodate your schedule, if possible, to attend. On behalf of the committee, I apologize for bringing you here and being unable to hear your testimony on a very important issue to Canadians. So I do regret that, but we will work with your

schedule for the next meeting. It will be a request of the committee to ask you to tell us when you can attend, and I do apologize. Mr. Brock Winter : Thank you. The Chair : Mr. Julian. Mr. Peter Julian : Thank you, Mr. Chair. It's very, very unfortunate that the Conservatives have basically shut down this hearing of the Canadian Pacific. We would like to have asked our guests questions. They made the choice to try to ram through what they knew was a divisive motion.

They made the choice to try to push something through when the due diligence had not been done, despite opposition requests to have simply put into place a couple of— Mr. Ed Fast : On a point of order, Mr. Chair, again Mr. Julian is not relevant here. The motion on the floor is a deferral motion. Would he please restrict his remarks to that issue? The Chair : I would ask you, Mr. Julian, to stay on the deferral motion. Mr. Peter Julian : Mr.

Chair, I'm going to continue reading the two other paragraphs that I have the intention of reading, because they are very clearly linked to the whole issue of deferral—very clearly. The reality is, when you have a court decision from yesterday that speaks specifically to rural mail delivery, we have to take into consideration what the implications are of ramming through a motion without due diligence and without calling the appropriate witnesses back.

Here are the paragraphs the Conservatives are taking such objection to, and they're taking objection to it because it points to the fact that they haven't done their due diligence: However, many Canadian communities cannot be served economically. Hence, Canada Post needs to engage in the lucrative letter mail business and Parliament has granted it an exclusive privilege respecting the collection, transmission and delivery of letters.

As the respondent notes, the exclusive privilege granted to Canada Post enables it to provide ordinary mail service throughout the country at the uniform rate despite its many geographical challenges. This is because the relatively low cost of providing services to the 80% of the population that lives largely in dense urban centres within one hundred and fifty kilometres of the southern border with the United States offsets the relatively high cost of providing such services to the remaining 20% of the population that lives throughout the more remote parts of Canada.

Spring is ultimately owned by the postal administrations of the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, and Singapore. It carries on the business of collecting, transmitting and delivering international mail, including letters, from senders in Canada to overseas locations. Mr. Ed Fast : On a point of order, Mr. Chair, he is not relevant. He is continuing on the same type of speech-making that he's been doing for the last ten minutes, and it's inappropriate, because he's wasting this committee's time. Really, Mr. Julian, I implore you to respect this committee.

Don't abuse the privileges you have as a member of Parliament to have input into something as important as remailers. To simply delay and delay and delay and to actually disregard the chairman's rulings that you need to restrict your comments to the point at question, which is a deferral motion, really shows disrespect to the whole committee. So please stay on point. The Chair : Thank you, Mr. Fast. Although it is not a point of order, and I believe I have been giving the member as much latitude as I possibly can, I do sense that to some degree you're discussing the motion, not the motion to defer— Mr.

Peter Julian : No, Mr. Chair. The Chair : —so I would ask you to just keep your comments within the parameters of the motion to defer. Mr. Peter Julian : I have three sentences left, Mr. Chair. It is, as you know, very relevant and pertinent. Over the last 15 minutes, we've spent 10 minutes listening to the Conservatives with their points of order, wasting committee time. To read three paragraphs takes about four minutes, Mr. Chair, and that is the amount of time that I needed.

So on the deferral motion, again, to avoid hasty, irresponsible action, we look to the court decision yesterday, which states: Spring’s operations focus on the largest corporate and institutional mailers in Canada, who reside in the more densely populated and easily serviceable areas of the country. Spring does not serve the more remote areas of Canada where the costs are high in relation to the revenue generated. Unlike Canada Post, Spring is not required to bear the high cost of providing services to the more remote regions of Canada. Mr.

Chair, there it is, very clearly, in the court judgment: the relationship between universal provision for postal service and rural postal delivery. So rather than making a hasty decision, despite the Conservatives stonewalling and refusing to hear some of the important aspects of information that has come forth since this motion was tabled, it is important for this committee to defer this discussion, get the witnesses in that Monsieur Laframboise, Mr.

Bélanger, and I have been calling for, get their due diligence done, do their homework, and then we can proceed to a discussion on the motion that is honest and where we've done our due diligence.

(1655) The Chair : Thank you, Mr. Julian. Monsieur Bélanger. [ Translation ] Hon. Mauril Bélanger : Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think that we must remember some important facts. I have been here for quite a few years, and I have always tried to be respectful toward Parliament, toward my colleagues and toward the procedures that we have refined over the decades as we resolved various conflicts and confrontations. All that was done to enable parliamentarians here today to work in conditions of mutual respect. You said that Mr. Julian's comments must be clearly relevant to the subject at hand. Mr.

Chairman, I have a few points to make about this important issue. There were good reasons, at the outset, for providing the option of deferring a debate or a motion. The procedure was then refined over the years. Someone might have tried to "pull a fast one", or someone might have tried to have used his majority position, or someone might have tried to have a motion adopted more or less blindly, without sufficient debate or proper information. Mr. Chairman, at such times, members must have recourse to procedures that were traditionally handed down to us, and that is what is happening here today.

I do not really know why my colleagues opposite are laughing—perhaps there was an error in translation—but, Mr. Chairman they can laugh as much as they want. We are seized with a motion that the government is trying to ram through. This motion could have very important consequences for the Canadian public. There seems to be some inability, or even worse, some unwillingness to ask for the information that we could use before making a decision. This is the reason why motions like the one I tabled two weeks ago and that I am tabling again today have an important role in parliamentary debate.

One should not try to fool one's colleagues. Once again, there is an attempt to table a motion without giving us the information that we need in order to debate it. Those who believe, as I do, that we might be mistaken in adopting such a motion have the right to get information, to hear witnesses and to ask our researchers to provide the historical background of the issues at hand. Let me emphasize that I have only dealt with procedure. I have not even mentioned the substantive issue. I think that everyone understands what I am driving at.

As responsible parliamentarians, I think that it is our duty to hear witnesses. If we don't take the time to do so, what are the remaining alternatives available to opposition members? We can only table a motion like the one we are tabling today and defer the debate until the minister has done what he promised to do or until we get the information that we need to make the decision. Mr. Chairman, that is not the case.

As long as I am under pressure to swallow a pill that I do not want and do not know, as long as I do not have all the information that I need to understand why certain measures should be taken, I will continue behaving in this way. I think that I am behaving just as responsibly as are my colleagues opposite who want to adopt a motion immediately without any opportunity to hear witnesses from Canada Post, who are the experts in this field, and without understanding why they did not put up more a fierce opposition to remailers over so many years. I want to have answers.

What would be the impact of such measures on first class mail? This is what is really at stake. If we really want to serve the Canadian public— [ English ] The Chair : Mr. Storseth, on a point of order. Mr. Brian Storseth : Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm not sure I believe that I'm actually doing this and sticking up for Mr. Volpe here. I think there must be something wrong with my translation, Mr. Chair, because I continuously hear Mr. Bélanger refer to the government doing this and our side doing this. We are debating a motion put forward by the honourable opposition critic.

I only want to clarify that and put it on the record, Mr. Chair.

(1700) The Chair : We're actually debating a motion put forward by Monsieur Bélanger. It's not a point of order. Mr. Bélanger. [ Translation ] Hon. Mauril Bélanger : 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.

(1705) 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. The Chair : Mr. Laframboise. Mr. Mario Laframboise : Mr. Chairman, I'll try and explain to you why I am going to support Mr. Bélanger's motion. Perhaps it's even more serious. The minister may have a reason for not tabling his report or his comments. Perhaps the act needs to be amended.

Perhaps he thought he could do what he is doing by way of regulation. He didn't need to come and see us and ask for a motion like Mr. Fast's. If that is the case, imagine the time the remailers wasted believing the government. If a legislative amendment is needed and the minister realized this and we are not aware of it because he did not submit his report, we will have to start all over again. When you're dealing with legislation, you have to hear from witnesses.

I don't know what the minister was thinking and if he came to the conclusion that a legislative amendment was necessary following the Appeal Court's decision. Regardless, I have trouble with the fact that we have to start the work all over again and that we've wasted over a year because people did not want to hear from witnesses. I'm less and less inclined to support the government, especially in delaying the real discussions, because in any event, we'll have to start them from scratch. Mr. Bélanger's motion today is extremely important. We should wait until we get the minister's report.

He has probably done his analysis. He should table this before the committee as quickly as possible. And if an amendment to the act is required, then he needs to introduce a bill. Sometimes ministers introduce draft bills for discussion purposes. If he wants there to be a discussion of this nature, then he should table a draft bill and we'll discuss it. If that is the solution or the recommendation that he was ready to make but does not want to make because he feels trapped because he should have made it directly to the remailers— I understand the remailers. They are in a tough spot.

They have jobs, and the recent decision went against them. If the ultimate solution is to amend the act, Mr. Fast's recommendation won't achieve anything. The act needs to be amended, a bill needs to be introduced, and it needs to be debated. Legislation cannot be enacted without hearing from Canada Post's remailers. That is unthinkable. If that is the direction that the government wants to take, then they should tell us. It's quite unrealistic to think that Canada Post's exclusive privilege, which is statutory, would be bypassed and that every party would agree to have the bill fast-tracked.

Just by listening to us, you can tell that we won't be giving the go-ahead to any fast track. I'd like my colleagues to think carefully about this. Mr. Bélanger's motion is quite useful. The Conservatives should go back and see the minister and tell him that Mr. Bélanger may have been right. His report must surely be ready. He promised we'd have it, and there were speeches made about it. The parliamentary secretary knows what I'm referring to. The minister must have a reason for not submitting the report. Perhaps the findings aren't palpable in the sense that the act requires amendment.

If that's the case then he should introduce draft legislation or table a report. We're prepared to help him. I'm the one who moved the initial motion to have them appear. I'm keen to discuss this on the proviso that I have enough time to ask all the questions that need to be asked, which is something you didn't give me the opportunity to do. That's why I keep coming back to my original point. I asked you for some time. You called on me to follow the rules set by the committee.

So that is what I did, and that is why I still have questions to ask before such an important change is made, because it may have an impact on rural mail. I'm a member for a rural riding. There are many rural ridings across Quebec. We want to ensure that any government decision doesn't jeopardize rural mail services. There are questions that need to be asked, and we'll see what happens after that. If, in the recommendation or the document that the minister was supposed to produce, the only solution is to amend the act, imagine the time we wasted trying to move a motion to influence the government.

All the government will do is table another bill. And if that happens, we won't have had time to hear from witnesses. We'll have to call all these witnesses back, and we'll have wasted time. I hope the Conservatives are aware of this. I don't want to attribute blame, but you wasted the Canadian Pacific witnesses' time today. I hope that you didn't waste too much of the remailers' time. If the solution is to amend the act, we should wait for the minister's recommendations. And that's why I'm going to support Mr. Bélanger's motion. (1710) [ English ] The Chair : Mr. Julian. [ Translation ] Mr. Peter Julian : Mr.

Chairman, I don't for the life of me understand why the Conservatives are refusing Mr. Bélanger's motion to have the discussion deferred. It's as if they were afraid to hear from the witnesses and to know what the impact will be on the rural regions. We saw how the Conservatives tried to prevent three paragraphs of the Ontario Appeals Court decision from being read. It took me 15 minutes to read those three paragraphs because every 60 seconds the Conservatives tried to stop me from reading a decision which greatly affects Mr. Bélanger's motion.

The motion is to postpone discussion on a motion and an amendment which will, in all likelihood, have an impact on the postal services in rural areas. I don't understand the Conservatives' reaction. They refuse to take responsibility, to do their duty, and to understand the ramifications of not deferring the discussions. If the discussions were to be pushed back, there would be no major impact and the committee members representing the Conservative Party would at least have the opportunity to read the decision and understand the impact it will have on the rural services.

Postponing the discussion is a sensible and responsible option. It's our duty. Any rushed decision would be irresponsible given the Court of Appeal's ruling and would have an impact on the rural regions. There are Conservatives members of Parliament who represent rural regions in northern Alberta and they don't seem to be sensitive to what may occur if a decision was to be made in haste. They refuse to support Mr. Bélanger's motion. His motion is sensible and will help the representatives of rural regions to do their duty.

They refuse to shoulder their own responsibilities, and to review a court decision affecting the rural regions. They refuse to hear from witnesses and to have a discussion on the impact on the rural regions. That's what I don't understand, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Bélanger and Mr. Laframboise both said that they don't understand why the Conservatives are in such a rush to make a decision which may have an unforeseen impact on their own ridings. That's what I find surprising. I think it's irresponsible. Mr. Bélanger's motion is appropriate.

He wants deliberations delayed until we get the minister's report, a report, I might add, we've been waiting on for almost six months. It doesn't take six months to write a report on these issues. The minister promised we would have the report late last year. And still we don't have it. The Conservatives tell themselves that they've heard the court's decision and that this is enough to justify ignoring the impact this may have on our own ridings. They just want the motion to be passed, regardless of the consequences. It's irresponsible. Adopting Mr.

Bélanger's motion would be a responsible thing to do as it would mean postponing the discussions. I'm sure Mr. Laframboise and Mr. Carrier will also support any motion to summon the witnesses we've been waiting to hear from for a number of weeks. Had this suggestion been made, we would have heard from witnesses from Canadian Pacific and had a discussion on rail network security. All they had to do was to agree to hear from witnesses and listen to them talk about the repercussions before debating this other motion. Mr. Bélanger is sensible.

He wants the deliberations to be put off until we've got the minister's response. If I've understood correctly, the Conservatives are telling us that the minister will never do his duty. That's the only thing we can take away from their rushed and irresponsible decision. The committee has the power to decide to hear from witnesses, that is its prerogative.

(1715) The Conservatives have never made an attempt to deal with the issue of witnesses appearing. I don't understand why they haven't. Nor do I understand why they're afraid of having the three paragraphs of the decision read out as it refers specifically to service in the rural areas. They were afraid Canadians would find out about the Appeals Court's decision. Why is that? That's difficult to explain. I'd like the Conservatives to explain themselves. Why are they so afraid of having these three paragraphs read into the record from today's meeting?

I don't understand why the Conservatives are in such a rush and why they fail to see the common sense behind Mr. Bélanger's motion. Every question Mr. Bélanger, Mr. Laframboise, and Mr. Carrier asked is valid. We want to be able to discuss this issue with witnesses who understand the matter and know about the impact these decisions may have. It's normal as parliamentarians to meet this responsibility. The court's decision affects the Conservative representatives' rural regions and yet they don't want to hear of it. They don't even want the decision to be read to the committee.

I just don't get it. [ English ] The Chair : Mr. Bell. Mr. Don Bell : I've been listening to the debate, and it doesn't seem to have changed much. My concern is that if we—I think that we should get the minister's report— Mr. Brian Jean : On a point of order, Mr. Chair, there is no report. We've had referrals from the other side: report, report. There is no referral of a report. The issue is going to be looked at. There's nothing about a report. It's about getting back to the House. There are many different ways to get back to the House. One is a report. There is no reference to a report.

The Chair : It is not a point of order, but it's— Mr. Don Bell : My point is, whether it's a report or whether it's comment, or whatever, that followed suit from the comments that were apparently made by the minister, my concern in delaying it is if we don't get the commitment, nothing is going to happen in the meantime. It's like seeking to have a decision considered for somebody who's sitting on death row. If you don't actually hold off the action, the person will be executed while you're going through the process. That's my concern.

I've read the e-mail that came from somebody in CUPW to provide information, Katherine Steinhoff, which I presume everybody has. It says: Please also note that Spring, which is a very large business—can appeal this decision. Therefore, no one is really at risk in the near future. There is time to investigate this issue. Rather than having Spring go through another appeal they've obviously lost here, my preference would be to have Canada Post know the minister's position that no action be taken while there is an opportunity for a third discussion. If that's not going to happen, then I'm against the delay.

But if we can get that, then I would like to see the minister tell us what his thoughts are on this. If there is a position that's coming out of this from the previous discussion, I think we should know that and resolve this issue.

(1720) The Chair : Mr. Jean, and Mr. Bélanger after. Mr. Brian Jean : I have five points that I want to put on the record, Mr. Chair. The first thing we're asking is that—The only thing the motion makes reference to, and is supported by some of the Liberal members and by the government, is that we keep things as they are and as they have been for the last 28 years. The second point is that the time wasted here is by other members.

I would invite all Canadians to read the record and see which members are wasting time and what they're saying, because there is, quite frankly, no logic, no reference, and no relevance to the issue itself. The third point is that there is no report. As I have mentioned, the minister did not say he was going to provide a report to the House. He said he was going to study the issue. The fourth issue is that we keep hearing rule, rule, rule. With respect to Mr. Laframboise, who does represent a rural riding, I am not referring to him in this comment. I'm referring to Mr.

Julian, who does not have anything to do with a rural riding as far as I'm aware; he certainly does not represent any rural members such as three of the members on this side of the House do. We understand the issue with Canada Post. Fifth, this House, these members, make the laws. The judge's job is to interpret those laws. That's why we're discussing changing the law, at least on an interim basis, so that these Canadians are not put out of work in places such as Toronto, Vancouver, and people who work in unions in different places. We want to keep the status quo, Mr. Chair. That's all we want to do.

We want to protect the situation as it is, so that moms and dads and Canadian families are not put out on the street. That is what this government wants to do at this time, keep the situation as it is, in control. The Chair : Monsieur Bélanger. Hon. Mauril Bélanger : Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I hope that after what we've just heard from Mr. Jean, any further questioning of relevance will be immediately discarded. Because some of these things are about as relevant as he was claiming a moment ago that others were not.

For instance, on the matter of no report, I've quoted the minister's words often enough, and I'll do so again. The last sentence there says, “but we”—as in the royal we for the government—“will be advising the House as to what we want to do in the coming days”. This was in reference to the remailing matter. That is a commitment on behalf of the government to come back to the House, in whichever way—in a speech, in a report, in an announcement—as to what it intends to do, in the coming days, and that was a year ago.

So when we hear that there is no report, that may be accurate, but there is a commitment to advise the House. Then what happened is that we got a motion coming from a government member to amend the law—to cut, change, modify, amputate the privilege—without having had the benefit of whatever it is the government has been doing in that past year.

Furthermore, on Monday, at this very committee, we found out that the minister and the government are thinking of a review of Canada Post, and not just on the remailers, but I believe—and I'd have to verify the committee Hansard—the minister may have mentioned that the matter of remailers might be included in that review. I'd have to verify if my recollection is accurate in terms of what the minister actually specified; he listed two or three things that he would do.

But the fact that the minister and the government are considering a review would delay this even longer if he's planning to use the review, with whatever format it might take, before dealing with the remailers matter. So we've had a situation here for a year in which the government, the minister, having given a commitment to come back to the House advising the House as to what we want to do in the coming days—for a year now—and having reconfirmed that in the fall through another question in the House—And we still don't have that.

And now, all of a sudden, we may be facing a review of Canada Post, which may take—We'll all agree, I would hope, that these things take months, if not years. But certainly it's not done in a matter of days or weeks, especially since the review, if it's going to happen, has not even been triggered yet. In the meantime, my colleagues—and rightfully so—are concerned about what might happen to remailers if Canada Post insists on having its privilege respected, as the courts have ruled in the past months. Can the government act? Yes, the government can act.

Does the government need the permission or even the prompting of a committee? Hopefully it shouldn't. And it can. The minister has every ability in the law to take action to talk to Canada Post, but not by seeking this committee's endorsement for amendments to the law. That's where this whole thing started, because the initial motion that is on the floor is Mr. Fast's motion. So let's keep that in mind when we're talking about what we're addressing here. As a matter of fact, I might ask, as a bit of a procedural matter here, would it not have been different, Mr.

Chairman, if the motion introduced by my colleague Mr. Volpe had been ruled as a substitute motion instead of an amendment? Because, in effect, that's really what it is. I don't know if we—

(1725) Mr. Ed Fast : On a point of order, Mr. Chair, we're talking about something that's already a moot point. We've moved on. It's totally irrelevant to our discussion here. The Chair : Thank you, Mr. Fast. Mr. Ed Fast : Mr. Chair, if I could just finish that thought, Mr. Bélanger had referred to his concern that somehow the minister wasn't acting. In fact, those who know the minister know he's someone who enjoys consulting before making important decisions. He has indicated to us, as members of the government, that he wants to know the views of this committee.

That is the process we're going through right now at this committee. Mr. Chair, for Mr. Bélanger's clarification, this is all about consulting with the very members that Mr. Bélanger seems to be criticizing. The Chair : Mr. Fast, thank you. It's not a point of order. It is a point of debate— Hon. Mauril Bélanger : I like these points of order. The Chair : —and I will advise Monsieur Bélanger that it's not the position of the chair to comment on what-ifs. Hon. Mauril Bélanger : That's fair enough, Mr. Chairman. I enjoy these points of order, because they feed the comments we can make.

So keep making them, gentlemen. If the minister truly enjoys consulting, I don't recall him telling us in any format, on this side of the House, that was his wish. He may have told his own caucus members, and that's fine. But if I were asked I would certainly say I agree, but let's not just consult members of Parliament; let's consult the people who actually deliver the mail, the remailers, and the people who receive the mail. That is the extent of what Mr. Fast's motion asks us to do. We go to the very heart of Canada Post—the universal obligation—to bind this country together.

Without having done any consultation, which the minister apparently wishes, would we agree to that? I see some inherent contradictions there. I too enjoy consulting, but real consultation, not just consultations. I will give an example of which Mr. Fast is very much aware. In another committee where we had to deal with another matter, I supported the government when they insisted we hear witnesses from all sides of the issue. Mr. Ed Fast : Point of order, Mr. Chair. Is this relevant to the motion to defer? We have a dilatory motion on the table and we're wandering way off.

The Chair : That is not a point of order, and again I'll ask all committee members to try to stay relevant to the deferral motion. Hon. Mauril Bélanger : It is very relevant, Mr. Chairman. A procedural motion to defer until such time can be dilatory, as you've said. It can also be a very necessary procedural amendment, because we have not had consultations and the committee is being asked to make a decision of significant importance to amend

an act that's been standing now for a long time. This matter of universal privilege--

(1730) The Chair : If you'll allow me to interrupt— Hon. Mauril Bélanger : By all means—you're the chair. The Chair : We hear the bells ringing. We had a ruling today, the clerk has advised me, that we are able to suspend this committee to vote. I'm not sure what group makes that decision. Oh, it's the House of Commons—a fine group, I'm told. I suggest we suspend and reconvene 15 minutes after the last vote. Mr. Volpe. Hon. Joseph Volpe : It's not a suggestion. If you suspend we do come back. The Chair : Absolutely. Hon. Joseph Volpe : A quorum is how many people? The Chair : It's 50% plus one. Hon.

Joseph Volpe : So it's seven. Mr. Peter Julian : Mr. Chair, I move an adjournment. (Motion negatived) The Chair : We will reconvene 15 minutes after the final vote. It's not debatable.

(1840) The Chair : Welcome back. Thanks to everyone for your timely return. We're continuing to debate the motion put forward by Monsieur Bélanger. I'll defer to Mr. Volpe. Hon. Joseph Volpe : During our brief recess some of us got together and discussed a possible direction for this committee--the other members on this side of the table, and perhaps on the other side as well. If a motion is required—I think one will be forthcoming—we should suspend the hearing until Monday, when we will dispose of the motions that are before the committee.

(1845) The Chair : Mr. Jean. Mr. Brian Jean : My understanding was that we would be dealing with the motion by Mr. Bélanger today. The Chair : Mr. Volpe. Hon. Joseph Volpe : Mr. Bélanger's motion has been characterized by some as a dilatory motion. It might be a long evening discussing that motion before we get to the substantive motion. I don't speak for any other member, but I think there is a willingness to suspend the meeting so we don't have to start all over again. That suspension will end on Monday when the meeting resumes. At that time the dilatory motion will be dealt with, as will a substantive motion.

It won't happen right at that instant, but we won't be spending the next three months dealing with a dilatory motion. I think that was where we were headed. We want to deal with things. The Chair : Mr. Volpe, you're suggesting we suspend today's meeting, resume on Monday at our regular scheduled meeting, and that the dilatory motion before us now, the amendment, and the motion be dealt with on Monday. Monsieur Bélanger. Hon. Mauril Bélanger : We shouldn't have any illusions here. We can carry on tonight, and who knows how long it will go and what we'll achieve. I don't know.

I'm not in the habit of doing that, and I'd rather try to be constructive. My colleague suggested we suspend the meeting as it is until 3:30 on Monday. Those who have a keen interest in this—from all sides or not—could find out if there's a common ground. Give the goodwill around this table time to find a common ground, and if there's no common ground we'll continue. Or we can carry on tonight, but I have a funny feeling that tonight might be long and might not breed a lot of goodwill--it might eat up a lot of goodwill.

So I am hoping—and I'm quite prepared to move it—that we can suspend the sitting until 3:30 on Monday. In the interim, hopefully there will be enough discussion among some parties and some members of the same party that some common ground can be found to move ahead. It's a leap of good faith. Perhaps some members are not prepared to make it, and I respect that.

It involves essentially no commitment beyond the fact that—I'm quite prepared to proceed on Monday, but I'm hopeful that between now and then there can be enough noggins used and efforts expended to come up with some common ground that can be acceptable to all. The Chair : Mr. Jean. Mr. Brian Jean : In the spirit of cooperation, I would certainly move a motion. The Chair : Are you moving a motion right now? Mr. Brian Jean : I'm discussing the possibility of moving a motion. The Chair : Okay, please continue. Mr.

Brian Jean : I would like to discuss the possibility of moving the following motion: that we move the dilatory motion, plus the other two substantive motions, to Monday for the first hour of debate; at the end of that hour, a vote will be called on all three motions—the dilatory motion, as well as the two substantive motions—and at that time the will of the committee will prevail. If we're going to adjourn this matter and take up more committee business, I would suggest that we have some methodology for how to end this, or have some sort of exit plan and exit strategy. My proposal, Mr.

Chair, would be on that basis and a first step in moving towards that. If, in the meantime, we find some other wording—though I've not been approached with it—or any other part of the motion that would be acceptable to the other members, or we could find some other way to move forward, certainly I think it would be a reasonable compromise. I think Mr. Bélanger is correct; I don't think anything's going to be gained by going on and on and on.

But at the same time, from the government's perspective, there's a lot to be lost; that is, we will lose the agenda on Monday, we will lose the agenda on Wednesday, and we will continue to lose the agenda until this matter is dealt with. I would suggest this would be a good and fair compromise.

(1850) The Chair : We have Monsieur Bélanger, Mr. Fast, and Mr. Julian. Hon. Mauril Bélanger : The only difficulty I can see if such a motion were moved, Mr. Chairman, is that we'd be locking ourselves into what's already there. Who knows, there may be enough creative capacity around the table and between various staff and so forth to come up with something that everyone would maybe agree with. If such a motion were approved, we would lock ourselves in. That's what I would hesitate to do.

Perhaps this wish is a loser here, but I think there's enough goodwill around—and I'm trying to display some—to give this an honest shot at coming up with something everyone can live with. And if not, then we can resume the debate from where it's left tonight, if there is a motion tonight to suspend until Monday at 3:30. I certainly would take the committee's will to do that, and I would not take it lightly. My interventions at that time will be significantly different from what they might be if we carry on today. So I just want to give all of us a bit of time here.

I hesitate to go on, because then we're getting back into debate. The Chair : Just for the information of the committee, once we deal with the dilatory motion before us, we do have the ability to vote on the amendments and the motion. And if there is agreement among the committee members to bring forward another motion that would maybe address the compromise we're all looking for, or a subamendment could be offered to correct that— I'll go to Mr. Fast. Mr. Ed Fast : Thank you, Mr. Chair. First of all, I'm not as optimistic as my colleague over there that we're going to come to any compromise.

The issue of the remailers, to me at least, is pretty black and white: either Canada Post asserts its exclusive privilege, or the remailers continue on with their business as they have before. That one's pretty clear. I don't see where you find compromise in that position. Be that as it may, I am aware of a comment that Mr. Bell made, and I took note of the fact that he apparently will not be here on Monday. That concerns me. He made his views known very forcefully and has taken a pretty strong position in favour of the remailers and the employees they support.

That would be my concern if we suspend or adjourn until Monday. I would love to hear from Mr. Bell before I make any decision on that. The Chair : Mr. Julian. Mr. Peter Julian : Mr. Chair, I think we had a compromise that was offered by Mr. Volpe and supported by Mr. Bélanger. The government can choose to refuse that. Of course, if the government chooses to refuse it, the opposition parties can choose to adjourn this meeting.

So the Conservative members of this committee should be cognizant of the fact that they can't impose additional conditions on a compromise that has been offered and reached; they can't impose a shutdown of the witnesses. We already have witnesses scheduled for Monday, and they are scheduled for one hour. The first hour of committee business on Monday will have to be for the witnesses. So we wouldn't be displacing the witnesses. Secondly, I don't believe it's appropriate at all to impose closure. As Mr.

Bélanger stated, something may come out of these discussions that will be different from the motions before us now. So I think the Conservatives have a choice to make: they can either accept adjournment, or they can accept the compromise. But they can't impose their point of view on the rest of the committee. What was offered was a suspension of this committee so that we can come back to this issue on Monday. That's a compromise, and certainly something that some of us have difficulty with, but which we are willing to accept in the interests of the committee's work as a whole.

I don't believe Conservative members are in a position to try to impose their will.

(1855) The Chair : If I may, I want to advise the committee that Monday's agenda, although drawn up, has not been distributed and may be subject to change. I have Monsieur Laframboise next. [ Translation ] Mr. Mario Laframboise : Mr. Chairman, I'm going to support Mr. Volpe and Mr. Bélanger's motion. I'm trying to understand what the government is doing, but I'm having trouble. You made a proposal which might give you the opportunity to rally— The Chair : Mr. Laframboise, excuse me, but [ English ] I want to confirm with the committee that we're not really discussing a motion at this time.

I think there was some back and forth to try to find a compromise motion, but please continue. [ Translation ] Mr. Mario Laframboise : I accept the proposal that has been made. It's not a motion, but rather a proposal from Mr. Volpe and Mr. Bélanger, and I'm going to support it. What we're telling you and what we're telling the government is that over time things might end up changing in relation to this matter. If I were you, I'd agree. I'm trying to understand why you don't want this file to move forward.

With this dilatory motion, we could be discussing this until the end of the meeting, based on the standing orders. We could end up discussing it tonight, and keep discussing it until tomorrow morning. I've already told you that I don't intend to filibuster, but if you want to play that game, we'll be here all night and all day tomorrow. I have nothing else I have to do. Right from the word go, I've been trying to understand you. Some things needs to be debated, so why don't you want to take the time to do this? If you push too hard, you're going to walk away with nothing. [ English ] The Chair : Mr. Jean. Mr.

Brian Jean : First, I'd like to respond to Mr. Laframboise. I've found him to be very courteous and very much a gentleman in the past, but we're not playing the game; that side or a portion of that side is playing the game. We're not filibustering. We want the will of the committee to go forward. If we lose the will of the committee on the basis of the question, then we lose it and we would respect that. But the game is not being played by us. The game is being played by that side of the table. It's not being played by you, Mr. Laframboise. You've been very clear, and I respect that, and you're a man of honour.

But it has been played by other people. I find it distasteful, but this isn't a compromise position that has been put forward by the other side. The compromise is we're trying to filibuster—From our perspective, from the government side, that side is trying to filibuster, and now we're going to agree to a five-day filibuster with nothing given back on our side. The only thing we're giving is the ability for the filibuster to maintain itself for five days, with no ability to interfere in the meantime. It's the only thing we're giving up.

The reality is we're in the same position today that we're going to be in on Monday. That's not a compromise. That's not good faith, that's not trying to do anything. We're only asking for an exit strategy, whether it be that some members are not present on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, or whatever the case may be, or whether or not other members are convinced. We want a decision made. We want the opportunity to have this motion heard. Mr. Fast, with respect, has waited for six different meetings. It's been three weeks.

We're suggesting that we find a common ground while we can find an end to it and have the will of the committee come forward. Whatever that time may be, let's find a compromise. There's no compromise position put forward by anybody on that side, because that side's trying to filibuster. The Chair : Mr. Julian. Mr. Peter Julian : I actually wasn't on the list. The Chair : Okay. Mr. Bagnell. Hon. Larry Bagnell (Yukon, Lib.) : I move that we adjourn the meeting. The Chair : We have a motion in front of us to adjourn the meeting.

If the motion stands, we'll start on Monday with a clean slate, with no motions before the committee, and with the committee business at hand. We would need to have an introduction of new notices of motion to move forward on this issue. Mr. Jean, it has to be a point of order.

(1900) Mr. Brian Jean : It is a point of order and a point of clarification, Mr. Chair, in relation to what you've decreed. What happens to the existing motion? It has not been debated. The debate has not finished on it. The Chair : A notice of motion defeats all the motions, amendments, and dilatory motions that are before us now. We have a motion to adjourn in front of us. I will ask the committee. It's non-debatable. Mr. Bell, on a point of clarification. Mr. Don Bell : Thank you.

The difference between a motion to suspend, which was what we were discussing, and a motion to adjourn is that a motion to adjourn in effect ends the discussion of the day and the motions would have to be re-entered. If you have a motion to suspend, then those items that are on the table return. If I can clarify for the chair and any of the members who want to know, I will not be here Monday, but I will be here Wednesday. The Chair : Okay Mr. Brian Jean : I have a point of order. The Chair : The last one. Mr. Brian Jean : I would like to offer a few minutes to talk to the other side.

I'd like to take a three-minute recess. The Chair : I would need consent from the entire committee for that. Mr. Brian Jean : I have a compromise position I'd like to put forward—that is why. The Chair : It's not a point of order, so I'll defer to Mr. Volpe. Hon. Joseph Volpe : Mr. Chairman, the reason I made the suggestion I made, and I'm sorry Mr. Bagnell was not here at the earlier part of the meeting, is that it was precisely to avoid an adjournment motion, which puts us back to square one.

A suspension would give us an opportunity to engage in some discussions to attempt to arrive at a position with which most people could feel comfortable. I will not support a motion that prevents me from coming back. That's all. The Chair : I regret we can't have any more debate. I will call the question. A motion has been forwarded by Mr. Bagnell. Hon. Larry Bagnell : We'll agree with the three minutes if that's unanimous. The Chair : I need unanimous consent to recess for three minutes. Do I have the unanimous consent of the committee? Some hon. members: Agreed. The Chair: We will recess for three minutes.

When we come back we will make a decision on the motion and then move forward. We still have to deal with the motion.

(1930) The Chair : The meeting is now back in order. Mr. Bagnell. Hon. Larry Bagnell : I'd like to ask unanimous consent to withdraw my motion to adjourn. The Chair : Do we have unanimous consent? Some hon. members: Agreed. The Chair: Yes, we have unanimous consent. (Motion withdrawn) Hon. Joseph Volpe : I want to resume the proposal I was suggesting earlier. After discussion with some members on this side of the table, following up on discussions that included Mr.

Jean, I'm proposing that we entertain a motion to suspend debate until Wednesday while we work toward a motion that will satisfy the concerns of members on both sides of the House. The Chair : Is that a motion? Hon. Joseph Volpe : I put that as a motion, yes. Hon. Mauril Bélanger : Is that 3:30 Wednesday? The Chair : For the record, Mr. Volpe has moved that we suspend tonight's meeting, adjourn the debate until Wednesday— An hon. member: Suspend the meeting. The Chair: He said suspend, so I'm going to use that terminology. Mr. Volpe has moved that we suspend tonight's meeting, to be resumed Wednesday at 3:30 p.m.

Mr. Jean. Mr. Brian Jean : I'd like to make an amendment to that motion, Mr. Chair. My amendment would be that all three motions--and I'm speaking specifically on the record of the dilatory motion as well as Mr. Volpe's amendment and the original motion--will be voted on prior to the meeting stopping, ceasing, or whatever word you want, before 5:30 on Wednesday. The Chair : Before I recognize Mr. Volpe, there's been an amendment proposed by Mr. Jean that would suspend tonight's meeting until Wednesday at 3:30, and the amendment would continue: that all three motions will be voted on by 5:30. Mr. Volpe. Hon.

Joseph Volpe : I appreciated the parliamentary secretary's intervention as a positive indication of the government's side wanting to bring this to a head and a productive conclusion. So what I'm going to say is to be taken in that spirit. I would perhaps in another time probably support Mr. Jean's motion, but I think that motion presumes the outcome of what will happen during the suspended hearings. The intention of my motion is to bring a decision forward on a position that may emerge over the course of the next several days, and such position may make all of those motions redundant.

To insist on voting on motions that may be superseded by one that finds the kind of common ground—which in a very few short minutes, when Mr. Jean was with us, included all parties around the table—would seem to be unnecessary. I am going to ask Mr. Jean to go back to my

preamble, and that is that in the spirit of cooperation we're going to suspend discussions because we really do want to arrive at something that is acceptable to everybody around the table. We've made a commitment in private, all of us, including representatives from members on