Transport Committee on June 1st, 2006

[Brian Storseth, Conservative, Westlock—St. Paul, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Minister. I want to say on behalf of all our colleagues here that we really appreciate your coming and sharing your vision of the department with us.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Easter.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and welcome, Minister.

My question relates to the Farmer Rail Car Coalition and the disposal of the 12,600 hopper cars. You know my view, Mr. Minister; it is that the new government has reneged on the agreement as it was with the FRCC. I would state at the beginning that it really doesn't surprise me, because Transport Canada, in my view after watching them over 25 years, has a history of being much more sympathetic to railways than to primary producers. That's under various political parties, including my own. I say much more sympathetic.

I have several questions on the FRCC. You have indicated that in the new arrangement there would be a reduction in freight rates under the revenue cap, and those figures are in various statements you have made. Can you give us the exact figure?

Secondly, the CTA in their document—which is not officially released, and I'm hoping you will release it—has stated that the charges applied for maintenance under the cap were $4,329, when the actual cost for the maintenance to the railways was $1,686. That leads me to believe the railways have been gouging—and I use the word gouging strongly—the prairie producer community since 1992 to the tune of $33 million per year. Are you going to be doing anything to recoup those moneys from the railways and return them to primary producers?

Thirdly and finally on that point, concerning the replacement of cars in the new arrangements it's unclear what the government is going to do about replacing the rolling stock of hopper cars as we go down this road. I'm wondering whether the government is considering taking on the responsibility themselves for replacing that rolling stock.

This is addressed to the infrastructure individual. The prairie grain road program that was put in place as a result of the loss of the Crow benefit ended in March. The Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities tells me there are a number of projects in the mill that can't be completed because the program ended in March. I'm wondering what the status of that program may be. You might not have that information today, but you can get back to me on it. That's my question.

[Lawrence Cannon, Conservative, Pontiac, QC]

Yes.

On the latter point, colleague, if you permit, I'll get back to you on that specific point.

I'll ask the deputy minister to respond to the more technical aspects, and also John Dobson from our department will be able to respond to it.

As you know.... As an entrée en matière I'll say that the previous government in its budget had determined that it wanted to sell the hopper car fleet, and it did work with the FRCC, as you mentioned before. It was only a couple of days, I believe, before the election that finally a transaction was done. We reviewed this transaction in the light of the information that was and that is available. I determined with my cabinet colleagues that the course of action we followed was the best course of action for farmers.

This having been said, I will pass my time over to Louis Ranger, who is our deputy minister, and to Mr. Dobson.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

I know them both.

[Lawrence Cannon, Conservative, Pontiac, QC]

Then you know full well that they do not necessarily have a prejudice towards the rail carriers, that they are good civil servants. I'm sure you are aware of that.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

There's no question about that.

[Louis Ranger]

But I certainly hope the railways heard what you said, because they may not actually agree that we're always on their side. We're inclinced to have a balanced view.

The minister basically explained the decision the government has made on the hopper cars. It has been on our desk since 1995. The government has made a decision. The cars bring the government $10 million a year. This certainly is a consideration in the decision. The view has been that the cars should stay with government, so that's the decision.

John Dobson will comment on the report of the CTA and perhaps have some comments on the car replacement issue.

[John Dobson, Senior Policy Coordinator Grain Monitoring, Surface Transportation Policy, Transport Canada]

In terms of the $2 per tonne estimate in savings for the revenue cap, that is just an order-of-magnitude estimate that was developed in conjunction with the Canadian Transportation Agency. As you're probably aware, in Bill C-11 there's a provision that allows the government to ask the agency to have a look at the actual maintenance costs and adjust the revenue caps to bring them in line with the actual maintenance expenditures that the railways are incurring. That will be done, and I wouldn't want to prejudge the results of that.

But we're comfortable that the $2 is a good order-of-magnitude estimate.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

John, you've admitted they've been overcharging. What are you going to do about the years between 1992 and now, during which they got away with gouging farmers $33 million a year?

[John Dobson]

The rail would be--

[Lawrence Cannon, Conservative, Pontiac, QC]

That's more of a political issue, so I'll respond to that by saying that maybe sometime you'll come back to power and you can demonstrate that you will be more than welcome to give all that money back. But as it stands now, we have, I think, corrected the situation, the flagrant injustice that has occurred, and we will continue to readjust. Once Bill C-11 is adopted, we will readjust the revenue cap.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Jean.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It must be star power that brings you here, Mr. Minister, because I've met with Mr. Julian three times--even once in his office--to bring your concerns to light. I'm now aware that he doesn't like me quite as much as you--but I'll deal with that.

My question really revolves around Montreal, Toronto, and Vancouver, and of course our caucus members never stop talking about how important those places are and how we can make their lives better. I'm curious as to what your vision is on a general overall strategy, especially in those areas, to promote increased transit ridership because of the environment and infrastructure and energy use, and how we can tie that in with a general overall Canadian approach.

[Lawrence Cannon, Conservative, Pontiac, QC]

Thank you for your question. Of course my parliamentary secretary is always willing to defend me in any circumstance, and that's reassuring.

[An hon. member]

You're his boss.

[Lawrence Cannon, Conservative, Pontiac, QC]

No, I'm not his boss. The Prime Minister is his boss, and his electors are his boss.

Fundamentally, I'd say that other than the initiatives that are in the budget--and we're talking about the $1.3 billion fund that was set up to aid urban transit projects--there is a series of other projects that are taking place. I'm thinking of the Canada Line, and the projects in Toronto, in Yorkville. Last week, as a matter of fact, I was at the Unionville station with the GO Train authorities, and we were able to announce the grade of a number of projects along that line...bringing them up to grade, I should say.

As you know, I come from a milieu where we have for a long time pushed for urban transit. On the weekend I had the opportunity of going to the Canadian Urban Transit Association's meeting in Saskatoon to reiterate once again this government's commitment to not only work with these people, but also at the same time push projects of urban transit.

Montreal has projects. I've had the opportunity of meeting Mayor Tremblay.

This morning I had the opportunity of meeting with Mayor Sullivan from Vancouver, and we discussed a series of issues. A lot of them, of course, pertain to dealing with 2010 and how the government can help in that direction.

Coming back to our fundamental approach, our fundamental approach and vision is that we strongly believe that urban transit is a must. It alleviates enormous amounts of congestion. We were in Toronto not long ago, where we tabled the first report on the estimated cost of congestion in this country. It's in the billions of dollars.

All parliamentarians have to be able to come around to help shore up our infrastructure to permit Canadians to freely go where they want to go--to continue not only with the sustainable part of it, but also to expedite our services and our goods that way, through that means.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you, Mr. Jean.

I'm advised that Canada Post is now here and ready to go. We do acknowledge that you have spent the extra time with us. I'm sure the committee will invite you back again to ask you questions in the future.

Thank you very much for your time.

[Lawrence Cannon, Conservative, Pontiac, QC]

I would like to thank all of you for your kindness, and I look forward to cooperating with you in the future.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you.

Ladies and gentlemen, members of the committee, we'll get back to our hearing.

Today I'd like to welcome Moya Greene, on behalf of Canada Post, and Mary Traversy.

I understand, Ms. Greene, you have a brief opening statement.

For the information of the committee, because we have a half hour, we're going to allow five minutes per party and if there's any extra time we'll allocate accordingly.

Please begin.

[Moya Greene, President and Chief Executive Officer, Canada Post Corporation]

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, thank you very much for giving me this opportunity to appear today.

I have with me my colleague, Mary Traversy, our senior vice-president of employee engagement. Issues surrounding all matters concerning employee occupational health and safety, and in fact the entire labour relations file at Canada Post, regardless of where that file touches--delivery, post offices, whatever--is Ms. Traversy's responsibility. She's here with me to help elaborate what we are doing on this issue of rural route delivery, which I know is very important to many of you and to your constituents.

I know that the committee members have heard about the recent concerns regarding health and safety raised by certain employees of Canada Post who deliver mail to mailboxes along rural routes. Canada Post explained the situation to those members whose ridings are affected by this issue.

As for the members who have not yet been informed about rural conditions, it would be useful, no doubt, to give them some background information.

First of all, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I'd like you to know that every day Canada Post delivers 40 million pieces of mail to 14 million addresses in Canada. It's a huge logistical exercise to do that. We do that on time 96% of the time and we're very proud of our delivery record. We are a delivery company and we want to deliver the mail. We know the importance Canadians attach to receiving their mail on time, and we know that's the basis of our business going forward.

We would do everything humanly possible to avoid any disruption whatsoever to delivery anywhere, but especially we know to rural Canadians who are at some distance from other points of service. Rural mail carriers deliver mail to approximately 843,000 stops through roadside rural boxes, but our rural mail carriers, and there are about 6,600 of them across the country, deliver mail in a variety of ways, not just to the rural box at the end of the lot line, but also to other collective forms of delivery--to post offices, community mail boxes, and the green boxes that many of you have seen in cottage property areas, for example.

You might find it important to understand that Canada Post employees have not always performed this work. In fact, this work has been done for Canada Post for many decades by independent contractors. Sometimes these were small family businesses, businesses that would bid to Canada Post to have the right to deliver for a particular area. In 2004, however, as a result of the collective bargaining that I think happened about a year and a half before that, the rural route delivery agents, formerly independent contractors, became employees of Canada Post. Of course this had been the subject of some discussion well before that collective agreement. As many of you recall, there had been a private member's bill on this even before the discussion.

The law in Canada is now pretty clear and it has evolved in the area of safety over these past few years--in fact, even over these past two years. The law in Canada rightfully, morally, legally, clearly places obligations on employers in the face of a hazard, any kind of hazard in the workplace. Under the Canada Labour Code employers have a legal responsibility to ensure that the health and safety of employees is protected and we have to be proactive in the discharge of that responsibility.

In addition, as many of you will recall, there was the debate two years ago on the horrible Westray mine disaster. That prompted a great deal of discussion and in fact changes to the Criminal Code of Canada to augment the responsibility that employers have in this country with respect to occupational health and safety. Now, according to the Criminal Code, not only do corporations face fines if they know about a safety hazard and they do not respond, but employees of the corporation, including the CEO and any employee who is in a position to direct other employees, may face a criminal penalty, in fact a jail penalty, if we fail to discharge our obligation in that regard.

In the past six months a number of things have happened. Close to 300 of our 6,000 or so rural route carriers have raised health and safety concerns to the company. Some of the 300 people have actually exercised their legal right under the Canada Labour Code to refuse work. In those situations the Canada Labour Code has occupational health and safety officers, decision-makers, who will review the action taken by employees and decide on the spot whether or not it was a valid refusal to work. In that case the company, Canada Post, has a legal obligation, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, to immediately respond.

It's important to understand that our employees have raised two separate quite distinct categories of safety hazard. One is road safety. In Canada, and you will understand because of many of you live in these areas, patterns of urbanization have changed. With urban sprawl we have much more traffic on what were five, ten, or fifteen years ago quiet country roads. In fact, if we take our advice from the traffic safety consultants at the National Research Council, we understand that probably as many as 20% of the points of call on rural routes are probably experiencing dramatic changes in the traffic patterns, such that anybody working on those routes would have to manage their way around.

The second safety hazard is quite different. It's an ergonomic hazard. That means it is a hazard relating to a repetitive movement of the body, which may cause a repetitive stress injury down the road. In the case of the delivery to rural boxes, you can understand that if all you had to do was to reach over one or two times a day to put an envelope in a box, that probably would cause no problem. But in the case of rural routes, sometimes we have 150 or 200 points of call. Our experts are telling us that this kind of repetitive reaching over a long period of time can indeed cause problems down the road. These are serious issues.

No one in Canada Post wants to require any Canadian to change what is a satisfactory and convenient way of receiving their mail. I can assure you that is not something that Canada Post wants to do.

Our systems are big systems. There are huge logistical exercises to get the mail out. Any change to those systems and any change to delivery is a change transformation exercise that is incredibly large and cumbersome for a company that has 71,000 employees across the country.

We are not looking to do this, but when a safety issue arises and someone refuses work, we have a responsibility, legally and morally, to respond immediately and in the least disruptive way, to do whatever we can to keep the mail going to our clients.

Mr. Chairman, let me assure you that Canada Post is fully committed to the safety of all its employees. This is why the corporation immediately implemented a series of measures to address these concerns.

I have asked that various experts be engaged to guide us, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee.

This is new ground for many of us. What was not even thought of as a safety hazard 20 years ago now is. Remember, 25 years ago we didn't even have to wear seat belts—just to remind you of how the world has changed in relation to safety.

So we have asked the National Research Council to advise us on, and help us evaluate, the working conditions of our rural mail carriers.

We have also retained specialists in the area of ergonomics. This is not an area of expertise for us, but we are becoming more expert in it by the day. Together with lawyers who specialize in workplace safety, we are coming up with a much broader appreciation of what it takes to keep our employees safe.

We have met with senior officials of Human Resources and Skills Development Canada—the department responsible for the occupational health and safety—who make the decisions about workplace refusals, to take advantage of their expertise and experience.

As an additional step, Canada Post is now providing flashing yellow lights to our rural carriers and reflective signs, so they can be better seen in different kinds of traffic conditions.

Committee members are aware that there are only a handful of safe alternatives to the delivery of service, to the way in which our clients now receive their mail. These might include delivery to a central point: to a post office, if it's not too far, or to community mailboxes that can be put in a location—not as good as receiving at the lot line, I understand, but one that is both safe and reasonably convenient to our clients.

As I know you know, millions of Canadians across the country are already receiving their mail through a community mailbox. Every single new subdivision in the country for the past 15 years has received their mail that way, and Canada Post knows how to do this. Certainly we don't like to change anything for people, and we are working with communities to make sure that change is the least intrusive possible.

Where Canada Post has received a direction from HRSD related to road safety or where the delivery is clearly unsafe—we can see it ourselves and don't need to wait to get the direction—immediate action is required. In these cases, I'm very sad to say that customers have been inconvenienced for a few days, as we try to get a new delivery system under way.

Mr. Chairman, when someone refuses to work for safety reasons, at that moment I have two choices: I can suspend mail delivery or try to find an immediate alternative. Sometimes the immediate alternative that's available to me is to deliver to a post office. It then takes me two or three weeks—sometimes as many as six—to get out to speak with the community to find out what is a reasonably convenient alternative location to get mail. That is what we have been doing.

We have been managing the refusals to work issue since November. Given all of the complexities surrounding the issue, I think we've done fairly well. Again my apologies, Mr. Scott, to you and most importantly to your constituents, my clients, who may have been inconvenienced earlier in the week.

We have implemented these emergency measures as stopgaps, Mr. Chairman. We also have a large community outreach and communications program, which we've had in place since I came to the company. This allows us to get in front of the people who are actually inconvenienced and seek their thoughts on what's the next-best reasonable alternative, and that's what we're doing.

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, Canada Post takes the concerns of our employees very seriously. I want to assure the committee of that. I know that you are as concerned about this as we are.

Needless to say, we do not want to inconvenience any of our clients, whether they be rural or other Canadians. Mail delivery will continue, I promise this committee, without interruption to all Canadians. Some changes in service may be required, and where that is so, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I promise that these changes will be ones that are the best reasonable alternative, all of the circumstances combined.

We are committed to ensuring that you are fully informed. Any of you who have constituents in rural areas, where I could have a safety problem to address, will know that we have been quite proactive in making sure you and your staff have been briefed on the complexity of the issue and the steps we are taking to resolve it.

I thank you very much once again for giving me and my colleague Mary Traversy an opportunity to be here today. I look forward to your questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you, Ms. Greene.

Mr. Scott.

[Andy Scott, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

First, I am somewhat disappointed that the minister is not here, because some of this questioning would be more appropriately put to the minister. He has already weighed in on this. He has already spoken of this publicly, and it is not unprecedented for a minister to appear with a crown corporation; I've done it myself, so it's not as if it couldn't happen. I'm forced now, because I'm not going to get another occasion, perhaps, to deal with things I'd rather deal directly with the minister on.

[Moya Greene]

You can always deal with me, Mr. Scott.

[Andy Scott, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

I accept that, but I understand the limitations you face as a public servant as well.

Having said that, this is not about anyone believing that somehow people carrying the mail should be put at risk; that isn't what it is about. This is, however, about the execution. On Monday, probably 1,100 people in my riding were told there would be no mail on Tuesday, or that there would be mail in some cases 60 kilometres away by return trip. This involves seniors, rural areas, and people with disabilities. It wasn't at all well done, truthfully. I don't know whether you want to do it now, but it should be accepted that it wasn't at all well done.

People saw this coming, so when I called on Tuesday, having received 60 calls, I was told that in fact it might be six weeks. That's what I was told, and you've said it again today—sometimes you mentioned six weeks—so that gives some credibility to it. I understand now it might be two weeks. That's better than six weeks, but I still have to register my displeasure, when we knew this was coming, that we have to order boxes, or we want to do community consultation, or whatever is the reason, with the fact that it has to take this amount of time. All of those things could have been done in advance with the community.

To a large part of this, involving a lot of the people who are caught in this decision, the argument we are talking about can't apply. People could have done many of these houses without violating any safety.... A lot of these are cul de sacs. It's a different issue, frankly, but you'd have to be on the ground to know that. That is what the community engagement part would be about.