Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I want to thank all the committee members for having me here today.
I spent my weekend reading the task force's report with considerable interest. I will focus on that document, and not on my previous work on Canada Post, because what we are interested in are the proposals it contains.
First, I want to point out what is interesting in the report and the in-depth work that has been done on the Canada Post question. It informs us researchers about Canada Post and contains many proposals and much information on public opinion that I find very interesting.
I will be making my opening remarks under three headings. The first is the convergence issue, which I feel is somewhat absent from the report and on which I would like to comment. Second is the funding of Canada Post, on which I will also make a few comments. Lastly, there is the pension plan.
Starting with convergence, a number of very interesting points have been made on the topic. I am pleased the task force looked at Canada Post's viability and not immediately at its privatization. This is something of a change from my specialty. I have mainly published pieces in which I say that Canada Post should not be privatized. Consequently, I will not be giving my usual spiel since we are not discussing that issue today.
The report outlines certain possibilities such as making Canada Post a community service centre or replacing Service Canada to some extent. It also addresses the possibility of postal banking. The report raises the possibility of an agreement with Caisses Desjardins or with other credit unions elsewhere in Canada.
Services to seniors are also mentioned several times in the report, which dances around the topic but never examines in concrete terms what that might mean. There is also the parcel issue, of course.
I invite you, as legislators, to consider the convergence question. Is it possible to rethink the role of Canada Post today as that of a community service centre? Canada's population is aging. In many rural communities, banks and credit unions are closing, and that inconveniences many fellow citizens. Could we create a space where a number of minor services that people need to a lesser degree, but need nevertheless, could be provided together?
It is strange that these issues are raised in the report but that it does not consider the possibility of funding Canada Post if it were to take on certain responsibilities from the government, such as those of Service Canada. If that were the case, would funding not be granted to Canada Post if its employees began to provide services that are currently delivered by Service Canada? Would that not balance Canada Post's accounts?
If Canada Post began providing home delivery of prescription medication for seniors, would there not be a way to provide funding for that purpose from the provincial health departments? The report states that this has been done in other countries. I remind you that the provincial departments already fund not-for-profit organizations that perform similar services.
Are there no responsibilities that could be assigned to Canada Post? The corporation's employees provide public services and are in contact with the population every day. We know perfectly well they are not public servants because Canada Post is a crown corporation. Why not take advantage of that fact to provide more services rather than think in terms of cuts? This is something we could think about. If it offered services to banks and credit unions, they would obviously be prepared to pay for them. It is possible to consider a financial restructuring for Canada Post, a topic that I believe was quickly removed from the discussion.
I will close with a word about the corporation's pension plan, an issue that is currently being addressed in an odd way. Let us be clear. If Canada Post closed its doors tomorrow morning, we would want it to be able to repay in full all monies from its pension plan. If this committee and Parliament ultimately decided to keep Canada Post alive, why then require that it cut financial resources for an eventuality that will not occur?
It seems to me that Parliament must be able make its decisions and to do what it must to maintain the services that are provided to Canadians.
Thank you.