To add to that, yes, it is a service where it has to maintain financial sustainability, but it also has certain obligations of levels of service. This is in the Canada Post act. I'll refer to paragraph 5(2)(b), which clearly indicates that it has to offer a certain level of service according to the area, whether it's rural or a city.
It has a monopoly. We can't give it a monopoly and expect it not to have the ability to give a certain level of service. Otherwise, what we should be talking about is the privatization of Canada Post. If we want to reduce it to a cookie-cutter fashion and make sure it's ultra-profitable, then that's a whole different consultation and discussion that we should have.
The other thing I would point out is that how we determine financial viability will depend on numerous factors. You're an accountant; you understand that anybody can play with numbers. I'll give you an example. Let's look at the economies of scale they have in an urban area, and let's look at their cost and profit in an urban area. That will be interesting to look at, whether that can justify home delivery in an urban area. Could we look at, as Mr. Demers mentioned, the indirect cost? Why should cities be paying for the maintenance, graffiti removal, and snow removal for community mailboxes?
I will point out that there's a fundamental difference in terms of the numbers between the working group and the Conference Board report regarding alternate-day services. We think it is a solution. I know they talk about $74 million. The Conference Board was talking about $350 million a year by 2020. These are the types of things we should be looking at.
Yes, there has to be an evolution. Yes, there has to be a change. But within a certain framework it can be done and should be done.