Government Operations Committee on Sept. 21st, 2016

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

The first point was: how do you see the deficit challenge, and how would like to be part of the solution? We were told that a lot of employees were supposed to be leaving. Could the transition to a new model adapted to the new reality be done gently?

[Guy Dubois]

I said earlier that we were part of a process regarding the five-point action plan. We were open with the employer, but this was unfortunately not the case at every level. I am referring here to the other three bargaining units that were involved. The most important one is CUPW. Personally, I don't think CUPW was consulted adequately. I believe that consultation begins when the four parties are seated at the same table. Obviously we aren't going to agree on everything, but as I said earlier, everything can be debated when discussions are held.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

Mr. Palecek, how do you see the workforce and the challenge?

[Mike Palecek]

I think one of the bright spots of the task force report is that it actually presents a number of options for some of our pension issues, without affecting the benefits of members or retirees. It puts forward several options. Of course, we'd be willing to talk about anything that moves in that direction.

We don't believe that the solvency test is an effective measurement of our pension plan. There are a lot of reasons for that. One of them is, of course, that Canada Post isn't going to be winding down any time soon. It doesn't make sense for a government-owned entity to be covered under this same test. But at the same time, the test itself isn't reflective of our pension plan. The real-world growth of our pensions and the return on their investment is five times what that solvency test projects it to be for the future. So either the test could be reformed or we could be removed from it, or another option, but we're certainly willing to talk about that.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

Thank you.

Mr. Paradis, did you have something to add?

[François Paradis]

I'm not sure I necessarily understand your question in terms of an attrition problem. Normally the way you deal with attrition is that you have to figure out where people are leaving from, develop some form of attrition plan or some form of succession plan, and figure out basically which positions you need to staff. If you have a high turnover or a high attrition, then you need to figure out where that's coming from and what you need to have the right people in place to do those jobs.

In terms of pensions specifically, the unions have taken an approach that we're looking for permanent solvency relief. That was sent to Minister Foote, referred to Bill Morneau, and I believe Canada Post as an organization took the exact same position back in 2008 during a legislative review.

In terms of the options provided in the document, I'd be more than willing to explore or at least consider those options as long as they don't negatively impact any members of the plan. We did raise that option as a side note with the pension advisory council at Canada Post. I asked basically if Canada Post would be doing some form of analysis of the options provided by the task force in terms of how it impacts the plan. I received two responses. Response A was that the task force document was new, and response B was that, well, it wasn't their report.

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Lukiwski]

Thank you very much.

[François Paradis]

I still don't have a clear response from the corporation.

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Lukiwski]

Thank you very much.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

Merci.

Sorry, Madam McAuley.

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Lukiwski]

Mr. Robillard, you have the floor, and you have five minutes.

[Yves Robillard, Liberal, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

May I share one minute with my friend Mr. Whalen?

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Lukiwski]

Fine.

[Yves Robillard, Liberal, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Ideally, we want to make Canada Post profitable. This may require changes. However, I want to ensure that we will not set aside the safety of users. In your opinion, what means are available so as to guarantee the physical safety of users and postal employees, regardless of any changes that are made?

[Mike Palecek]

We certainly haven't seen the emphasis on safety that we would like to see at Canada Post. That covers everything from health and safety to our workforce. We know that Canada Post has under-reported their injury rates. There's a major issue there.

We're certainly aware of the challenges faced by putting community mailboxes into neighbourhoods that weren't designed for them, and the risks posed to the public. We have submissions that go into that on our “Home mail delivery vs. community mailboxes” page, which talks about exactly that, some of those issues and the challenges faced.

In terms of health and safety, it really is both the public and our members at risk. I mentioned earlier the potential for an increase in repetitive strain injuries and so on. For the public, you're now going from a place where you have one letter carrier walk into the street to now the whole public having to come to one central location to pick things up. We see an increase in slips, trips, and falls. There has already been a number of serious injuries as a result of community mailboxes. That's a fact.

[Yves Robillard, Liberal, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

In your experience, what means are available to citizens to solve a problematic situation they encounter in connection, for instance, with a community mailbox situated in a potentially dangerous location?

[Mike Palecek]

Well, as I think we've experienced over the last couple of years, there's very little recourse. Some citizens have gone to extreme lengths, even occupying places and sitting down on lawn chairs to stop the boxes from being implemented. The City of Hamilton went to court to try to get some control over this. That's still winding its way through the appeals process.

I think it's quite clear that at least over the last couple of years, as they've rolled out the placement of mailboxes, the public consultation and the willingness to listen to complaints from within the neighbourhood have been completely lacking.

[Yves Robillard, Liberal, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Okay. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Lukiwski]

Thank you.

You have about a minute and a half, Mr. Whalen.

[Nick Whalen, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

Oh, wonderful.

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Lukiwski]

It's very generous.

[Nick Whalen, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

First, I would like to thank all of the unions for coming to present to us today. We know it's tight on the heels of the task force report. Most of your presentations will be coming to us in a written form.

I would like to suggest to the room and to the committee that, given the compressed timeframe today and the votes, we attempt to schedule another three-hour session involving the Canada Post Corporation itself; dedicate a second hour to the Canadian Union of Postal Workers; and then, to make sure we hear from the other unions on their own as well, dedicate a third hour to the other unions we have here today.

My question, then, to the unions is this. When we return from our road tour over the next four or five weeks, depending on what happens with our scheduling, would you be prepared to come back and meet us at that time, but attempt to get the written submissions in as soon as possible so we have an opportunity to digest them, discuss those ideas presented with Canadians across the country, and then pose further questions to you on those more detailed analyses?

[Mike Palecek]

Absolutely.

[Brenda McAuley]

I agree.

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Lukiwski]

I see general nodding of consensus. I can take that as unanimity.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Whalen. We'll certainly take that up on our steering committee.

Our final intervention will be three minutes, from Mademoiselle Trudel, please.