I don't want to put you on the spot, but I will continue with my question.
There is also talk about postal banking services. Bank cashiers are paid wages that are competitive with what other banks pay. Their salaries are not subsidized. From one bank to another, the working conditions are essentially the same.
The unions talk a lot about preserving employees' rights, and that is to be expected. I can understand that. Yet they are also talking about moving toward postal banking services. Are we to understand that the same conditions will apply, which are better than what the banks offer, and that subsidies will still be required?
Banking services are not part of Canada Post's core business; banks provide that service. Ultimately, if postal banking services were offered, subsidies would still be required. Does that mean we are still stuck in the spiral of subsidies and cost differences? Despite what certain studies say, the breakeven point will never be reached. Whether you believe in a study or not, there might be other studies that show the opposite.
Do you see the paradox here?