Government Operations Committee on Oct. 7th, 2016

[Joël Lightbound, Liberal, Louis-Hébert, QC]

I see.

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Lukiwski]

Go ahead, very briefly, please.

[Simon April]

I wanted to add something to what Ms. Trudel said about Ms. Tremblay, who took a taxi to go and pick up her mail. I know from experience that there are virtually no taxis for people in wheelchairs. So these are somewhat contradictory measures. There really is no such service, especially in the regions. So this is not a solution. The solution we propose is that customers take adapted transportation to go and pick up the mail. We can spend two and a half to three hours going to pick up an envelope.

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Lukiwski]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Kmiec, you have the floor for five minutes.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thanks to the witnesses for coming to meet with us today. I will continue asking my questions in French.

I am an MP from western Canada and would therefore ask that you indulge me a little and allow me the time to ask my questions.

The committee's purpose is to help Canada Post find a way to reduce its losses, which are anticipated to be $700 million by 2026, according to the financial reports that have been submitted to us.

There are two ways of doing it: either we ration service or we find new profitable services that Canada Post can offer. Today I hear you are seeking a lot of public services for seniors and persons with disabilities.

I put a question to people from another province during another committee meeting. When you consider public services, whether it be municipal, provincial, or federal services, where does postal service for seniors and persons with disabilities stand in this regard? For example, is public health more important? We know that all these services are funded by the same taxpayers, who pay for it all. We must know what is more important and what is less important. We will allocate less money for less important aspects.

Mr. Godbout and Ms. Gagnon, you may begin.

[Judith Gagnon]

Mr. Godbout will begin and then I will speak.

[Claude Godbout]

We should not make choices among essential services. Health is an essential service, and we consider access to mail essential as well. It is a public service. There is a good reason why Canada Post has a monopoly.

We have to determine how the two can be combined so that there are synergies. Each can benefit from the other. Some choices are less essential, but others are essential. It is not preferable to choose among essential services. We have to see how to provide these services, even if it means providing them in a more integrated or different manner. We must not offer a false choice between a doctor and home mail delivery because people then find themselves in a dilemma. We must not create false dilemmas. We must determine what we can do to provide these two essential services to seniors in the most efficient way possible. Either we make Canada Post more efficient, or we ensure that it offers new services. We have to determine how we can change the services rather than rationalize them.

[Judith Gagnon]

Mr. Godbout said it in his way, but I have the same opinion.

This makes no sense. We should therefore rank services from the most important to the least and make cuts at the lowest level. I say no to that approach. This is part of the continuum of public services. We have to rationalize and integrate services, but we must not rank them in order of priority and cancel those at the bottom of the list. We really are opposed to that.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Collomb d'Eyrames, do you want to add something on the subject?

[Olivier Collomb d’Eyrames]

As I told you, austerity has lasted for 12 years. What has been done? What is absolutely unnecessary is the salaries of senior executives. We want letter carriers on the ground and people at the counters. If you ask me what is least necessary, I am sorry but we think it is senior executive salaries. If you put the question that way, we cannot give that answer. Where will cuts be made? Should we develop something new? I think we should optimize services instead.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

What kind of partnerships do you currently have with the provincial government that might serve as examples to the federal government in delivering services to the groups that you represent? Various organizations have told us they have partnerships with their municipalities. Canada Post could therefore draw inspiration from that kind of partnership in delivering its services.

I discussed this a little with Mr. McAuley. For example, Canada Post would ask individuals who are 75 years old whether they want home delivery service or improved automatic service. Rather than be asked again if they are disabled or whether they have filed their income tax returns and received a disability tax credit, they would receive that service automatically.

Do you have any examples of those types of partnerships?

[Judith Gagnon]

I will not answer that exactly. However, I will say there are a lot of services and partnerships in Quebec. You have probably heard of the "senior-friendly municipality" initiative, which is specific to Quebec. Under that initiative, municipalities that adapt their services to seniors become senior-friendly municipalities. They must integrate various ranges of services to assist seniors. It may be appropriate to connect Canada Post with those types of programs.

Other promising initiatives have been developed in Quebec by local workers and the Department of Family to help vulnerable and isolated seniors. People go out into neighbourhoods to visit seniors. There may be a way to do something with all that. I do not know how we would go about it, but these types of initiatives already exist.

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Lukiwski]

Thank you.

Ms. Ratansi, you have five minutes.

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Good morning, everyone.

I am going to speak in English because it is easier for me.

I have a question for you, Monsieur Godbout. You talked about Canada Post being a business and a service. Canada Post, on its website, said it consulted 46 communities. One of them was Quebec City. Were you part of the consultation process?

[Claude Godbout]

No.

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

What about you, Mr. Collomb d'Eyrames?

[Olivier Collomb d’Eyrames]

No.

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Monsieur April?

[Simon April]

No.

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

The next thing they say is that “Canadians value postal service and see the need for change”—le changement.

If you were not part of the consultative process, were you aware of what changes were coming to Canada Post, to the service?

Ms. Gagnon?

[Judith Gagnon]

You talked about cutting postal services?

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Yes.

[Judith Gagnon]

In December 2013, it was announced that cuts would be made to home delivery service. At the national assembly of the AQDR, we said no to that. We conducted a campaign with our members, and there was a general outcry. We absolutely did not agree with that.

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

The only consultation you got was a letter or a notice saying they were going to convert your door-to-door service to community mailboxes, correct?

[Judith Gagnon]

Yes.