Evidence of meeting #32 for Government Operations and Estimates in the 42nd Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was service.
Liberal
Yasmin Ratansi Liberal Don Valley East, ON
Thank you, all, for being here, and thank you for your different views.
I'll start off with you, Mr. Lewenza. You talked about collaboration and taking into consideration the widest interests of citizens. Are you familiar with the pension issues at Canada Post?
As an Individual
Yes, I've followed the arguments. I couldn't provide a type of expertise, but I would suggest that outside of the management structure or even outside of the CUPW structure there would be an opportunity to pick almost like a panel to do an independent assessment on those numbers and how you move forward. Because those numbers, I am familiar, can be so misleading as if to give the impression that if everyone were to live to 90 years old, if Canada Post simply packed up and finished today, this is what the liability would be. So I think for the everyday average citizen to understand those things it just turns it into a fight instead of thinking about what's a more prudent approach moving forward.
Liberal
Yasmin Ratansi Liberal Don Valley East, ON
It was interesting when you talked about how these insane fights take place. We had some pension experts talking to us about how moving it from DB to DC will make no difference. So you are right, this is an approach that we need to take, because that's where the sustainability issue comes, a pension liability projection of making Canada Post unsustainable.
Mr. Kelly was saying that one says we're very good, and one says, no, your services are not good. The task force did a review, and the task force found that Canada Post is an essential service, it is a symbol for Canadians, and that 91% of Canadians agreed that this is a very good service. However, when we talk to businesses, the businesses were saying, you know what, they're not giving us timely service, they're not efficient, they have declined, they have a monopoly therefore they can do this.
What is your sense of that criticism against your services?
Second Vice-President, Local 630, Canadian Union of Postal Workers
What happened was before the five-point plan, Canada Post had started to close processing plants. And talking about financial sustainability, they were building billion-dollar plants in Montreal, Vancouver, Winnipeg, and Edmonton, and then closing a lot of the smaller plants, say Windsor, Quebec City, Halifax, and basically, in essence, shipping the mail, in Windsor's circumstance, to Toronto and back, thus affecting delivery standards for Windsor.
So Canada Post has gone from 21 processing plants across the country down to five mechanized. They have a lot of really state-of-the-art equipment, but it's very concentrated and we all know the size of Canada compared to, say, Great Britain or Finland. In trying to get mail logistically down the 401 and back...and everyone who might have come down the 401 today knows, there's construction everywhere.
Liberal
Yasmin Ratansi Liberal Don Valley East, ON
It's like the super jails they were proposing, like super processing plants. That's interesting.
Now that you do not have the corporate plants here, how would you propose to provide the extra services that you're talking about? Should we close those super jails or super plants, or what is the cost that's going to occur?
As an Individual
These are the types of things where there needs to be an ongoing conversation. For example, when there are ideas on how to do things more efficiently and effectively, I am well aware that there is a contentious relationship between Canada Post and the union that has gone on for a long time. Phil is my friend. I've had an opportunity to have a conversation with him, and I sometimes can't believe the labour relations climate that exists. I think there are many times when the union has concrete ideas around how things could be more efficient. The question is, how do we keep some type of process or dialogue going so that you can advance those ideas and you don't always need some type of committee that goes around once every 10 years? There has to be space to share these ideas on how to do things differently.
Liberal
Yasmin Ratansi Liberal Don Valley East, ON
It's because of management's fault...to get buy-in or to consult. We've been told it's arrogant, it's not innovative, and things like that. We don't want this discourse to be tied up in adjectives that are not conducive to a working environment.
You have an issue at the moment. Yes, we are here, but we want to see from you how would you manage within the environment. You want to provide more services, so how would you manage in the current environment?
Second Vice-President, Local 630, Canadian Union of Postal Workers
Canada Post moved the mail to London when they closed our plant in March of 2013. In August of 2013, they decided to also take some mail out of London, Ontario's plant. Then they moved our mail to Toronto, and now our mail goes to Toronto. Canada Post—I've been there a long time—does a lot of what we call “rearranging deck chairs”. They try something, it doesn't work, they go back, they try something else. What they're now trying to do is pull out Windsor mail that begins with N codes because from Windsor to Owen Sound to Kitchener, the postal codes start with N. At one point, they had a Kitchener plant that did premium products, such Xpresspost, expedited, and priority courier in a plant in Kitchener. They closed that plant and moved it all to Toronto. They have recently reopened—the physical plant is still there—the Kitchener plant, and now they're talking about a personal product in Windsor where they bring stuff back.
Second Vice-President, Local 630, Canadian Union of Postal Workers
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Tom Lukiwski
We will now conclude with two five-minute interventions. The first intervenor will be Mr. Brassard.
Conservative
John Brassard Conservative Barrie—Innisfil, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm going to focus my attention on Mr. Lewenza because I want to pick up on something you said in your opening remarks. It's amazing how eerily similar our paths are. I was a union president and I was also a city councillor for nine years in the City of Barrie, although our politics may be a little bit different, I suspect, being a member of the Conservative Party as I am.
I'm a guest on this committee, Mr. Lewenza, and one of the things I've observed, and I think you picked up on, is the politics at play with respect to this review. As an objective observer, I see one side blaming management. I see promises that were made that perhaps are not being kept. I've seen accusations of that. From another side, I've been listening intently to that, but one of the things that you said is the need to come together regardless of our political beliefs to better this system. I want you to expand on that given your experience, as has been my experience, of being on both management side and the union side, and understanding that there's always two sides to every story as it relates to not just labour, but also management. I'm giving you an opportunity to expand on what you think is needed in order for us to move forward, and understanding that this is a highly charged political environment.
As an Individual
You mentioned politics, but I think there was a review done on postal banking under Stephen Harper, and it comes back—
Conservative
As an Individual
Yes. It comes back and it's all blacked out, so you start asking yourself why all those areas are blacked out—
As an Individual
—which gives an indication that there are some real benefits to this.
I argue that at a time when people are really concerned about jobs, the economy, democracy, and people are frustrated, one of the things that I've learned is we need to trust people. When you provide everyday, ordinary people the access to information and you consult with them, more often than not they make the right decision, and I can give you concrete examples. I think it's when we get lost in our bureaucracies and we get lost in our ideologies that we start behaving poorly. The more we can have open conversations and dialogues in communities and we try to find solutions.... And let's even agree to set the objectives. Are these our objectives? When one side believes from the very beginning, ideologically, that a public service should be private, and the other side believes that they should deliver every service, I don't think that creates a healthy environment to find a solution.
I think it has to be grassroots. Communities have to start thinking about how we can at least agree on the facts, at least agree on the objectives, and start making decisions. I can't help but think in these types of cases that there should be an independent space. I'll give you an example with Phil. The gentleman from the business community comes forward and makes a presentation. I think his remarks are wonderful. He has a perception that the post office is sometimes slow. I would suggest to Phil, as the union president, not to wait for Canada Post to contact him. Have a conversation. Is this myth? Is this perception? Is this real? Because if I'm Phil, I'm starting to think about, if there are inefficiencies, or if that is in fact true, how can we fix that? I think we need to start breaking the mould and start having conversations.
In the past few years I've been working with odd bedfellows, and it's really interesting when you start thinking about areas where we actually agree. I think today, more than ever, people are looking for solutions. They're looking for co-operation. They're frustrated with government. They see things falling apart. I would argue to all of you that the best thing we can do is start finding a way to include people in the conversations. There are some very tough decisions that need to be made. Democracy is not easy. But when people are far removed from the process and they just see fighting, people turn skeptical and they check out.
I can't help but to say today, look what's happening in the United States. Democracy has completely collapsed, and you're looking at the consequences of that. That's why I say that citizens have to be engaged in the process, and we need to find new approaches on how we can work together around common goals.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Tom Lukiwski
Thank you very much.
Our final intervention will be from Mr. Whelan.
Liberal
Nick Whalen Liberal St. John's East, NL
Thank you.
I just want to start off by saying that I believe in Canada Post. I believe it has a history of nation-building. I'm looking forward to this committee's exploring in an in-depth and unrestrained way all possible futures for Canada Post.
In that, Mr. Lewenza, you talked about community involvement. We hosted round tables in St. John's East. We had a very good turnout and we talked about the future of Canada Post. All MPs have been encouraged to do that. I'm sure if you reached out to your MP, he or she would host a town hall to make sure that this happens with your involvement.
Having said that, not everyone can be involved in the same level of in-depth conversation that we are having. We're going to have over 100 hours of testimony.
On that point, I'd like to thank our interpreters for the last 14 hours of simultaneous translation that you've done for us to make sure that everyone in the country can understand and appreciate the testimony that we're hearing.
It's a surreal conversation for you, I understand. We're asking the questions that we feel are important, based on having already participated in 14 hours of conversation just in this week alone, and you're only getting to see one hour of it.
On pensions, we heard some very interesting testimony yesterday about joint management of pensions and decoupling the pension conversation from the labour negotiation. I would really like to hear the thoughts of Mr. Lyons, because Ms. Johnson had mentioned that he's a pension person; also, Mr. Lewenza, and any experience he's had in the collaborate approach to joint pension management.
September 28th, 2016 / 11:25 a.m.
President, Local 630, Canadian Union of Postal Workers
I think the biggest issue the union has is to be blind-sided by this issue. It was brought to negotiations. There should have been a committee formed a year or two ago, or we could have worked collaboratively and identified the issues. It is a real issue; we know that. We just see, again, the lack of transparency from the corporation. That trust factor has to be built. It's great that this committee is coming together, but the one thing I haven't heard about is the labour relations of this company. We're all kidding ourselves if we think that 19 labour disruptions over 46 years is going to turn anything around. I don't know how we get the confidence of business, of customers, when there's a threat of a labour dispute every three years. I think by working together, forming committees long ahead of negotiations—
Liberal
Nick Whalen Liberal St. John's East, NL
Mr. Lyons, in general, do you feel that the union would be in favour of joint pension plan management and decoupling the pension issue from the labour negotiations, to have that pushed?
President, Local 630, Canadian Union of Postal Workers
Yes, I think we would.
Liberal
Nick Whalen Liberal St. John's East, NL
Okay.
Mr. Lewenza, in your history in the labour movement, have you been involved in any joint pension management, or a transition from a corporate-managed pension plan to a joint union-corporate plan?
As an Individual
That's not one of my areas of expertise, but obviously I am around a lot of conversations thinking about what the challenges are. To comment on the recent negotiations, I want to paint a picture of my community. Because we had a high concentration of unionization—auto plants, public services here in Windsor, in this county—we have many people living in our community today who are actually making more wages in pension than the average person who is working. This whole conversation about what the future holds for people without.... We all know there is a pension dilemma and a crisis in our country, so I think we need to start having very broad conversations about how we move forward with this approach.
I'll give you an example of Unifor's conversation. There is no sense in negotiating or trying to negotiate a pension plan if you don't have workers. Today, the corporations have a lot of options, where they can go to Mexico.... I heard Ramez make a comment about how you compete. I'll give you an example. Someone in Mexico today makes three dollars an hour making a car. How do you compete? You don't.
The question is, what type of society are we heading toward, and how do we start finding solutions?
Liberal
Nick Whalen Liberal St. John's East, NL
Thank you, Mr. Lewenza.
I think this is something we are hearing on both sides of the table. We have to make sure that these jobs are important, that they are efficient, and that you can pay higher wages by delivering greater value.
It's difficult for me, as a politician, after so many hours of testimony not to get a little partisan, but when I talk about management and past performance, it's really with a view to whether our current management structure and the current management in place are the appropriate vehicle for future change in delivering on the future vision. You look at the vision they were asked to deliver upon, and it seems that they pursued it with gusto. It was the vision that was laid before them. Are they the appropriate vehicle for a new vision? This is one of the questions I have. If we want to expand, does that necessarily mean that we can't work with management? If management comes back to the table, in a real and meaningful way, and accepts the recommendations that have been put forward, can it be trusted to pursue a new direction?
My question would be for the three of you. Do you see an opportunity to work with current management to resolve these problems, move forward in a collaborative way, and jointly manage things like industrial improvements? Is management consulting with the expertise on the ground, with the union, on how to—