Government Operations Committee on Oct. 23rd, 2025

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

Denied, denied.

Honestly, in my own riding, 77% of my constituents still receive door-to-door delivery. In fact, when you look at the broader picture in Canada, 77% of Canadians already receive mail through community or rural mailboxes, as well as apartment buildings. That said, I've made it clear to Canada Post that as they move with this transition to community mailboxes, they absolutely need to make sure that the communities that will transition are informed of the accommodation program in place for Canadians with mobility issues. There is a program that exists that needs to be well advertised and needs to be known by all those who might require it. If it needs to be enhanced, then it should be enhanced. I'll be monitoring closely how Canada Post operates this transition, because it's important for all Canadians to have access to their mail.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

That's our time.

Thanks very much.

Madame Gaudreau is next, please, for six minutes.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Welcome to the committee, Minister.

We have the opportunity to respond to several questions from our fellow citizens and workers. I will start directly with rural areas and the vitality of the regions. People are concerned when we say that the moratorium has been lifted. What is the plan? I am sure you will respond that you are working on it, but what can we expect today?

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

Thank you for that excellent question, Ms. Gaudreau.

I understand that our announcement regarding the lifting of the moratorium is causing concern. The directives I have given to Canada Post are very clear: It is essential to protect service in rural, remote and indigenous communities, and I expect this principle to be reflected in the plan that will be provided.

Let me explain the thinking behind lifting the moratorium. It has been in place since 1994 and has created some incomprehensible situations. In some communities—I could give you a whole list—such as Richmond Hill, which is not necessarily a rural area today but may have been 30 years ago, there are post offices covered by the moratorium that are located a few hundred metres from another service point, if not across the street.

Lifting the moratorium will therefore allow service to be distributed appropriately across the country, so that there are no such anomalies, while preserving service in rural communities. On this subject, I have had good discussions with the people at the Union des municipalités du Québec to reassure them, because I understand their concerns. I am aware that the post office is often an essential link in many communities. That is really not the aim of lifting the moratorium.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

What needs to be understood is that people saw that the results of the study were going to be applied uniformly everywhere. The announcement on September 25 had the effect of a bombshell, let’s be honest. We couldn’t help but expect such an outcry. People needed to be consulted.

There are vulnerable people. I’m thinking, for example, of Francine, from Mont-Rolland, who wants to retire in five years. Since there are other offices nearby, she wonders if she’s going to lose her job.

What can we say to these people? Canada Post has 45 days to produce a recovery plan, but I’m sure you already have an idea today.

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

As I just mentioned, the idea is to focus more on post offices located in suburban areas than those in truly remote or rural communities.

With regard to jobs, it will mainly be Canada Post that will be responsible for operationalizing the transformation of its activities. We will have more information in the recovery plan, but based on the figures I have seen, there are still many postal workers who, as in the example you mentioned, will be retiring in the next few years. I am therefore convinced that part of this transformation will be achieved through attrition.

With regard to consultations, many reports have been produced, and this committee has done some work. There was also Mr. Kaplan’s report, which is quite substantial and takes note of all these other documents. Furthermore, the recommendations submitted by Mr. Kaplan at the end of his investigation will help to begin the transformation.

In my opinion, given that Canada Post is losing $10 million a day and has just had its worst quarter ever, it is not feasible to tolerate the status quo for much longer. I know that we have even discussed the situation, because you intervened in the middle of a labour dispute. However, the labour dispute has now been going on for 21 months. Waiting was not an option for me. The transformation must begin, and negotiations between the parties must take place in light of Canada Post’s financial reality.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Since I still have a bit of time, I want to talk about workers' concerns.

What will happen if letter mail delivery is maintained? Municipalities come to mind. They, among others, still use it. They really need the official information on that. Remote and northern areas also come to mind. Just sending a microphone to a witness who was supposed to appear next week was a big deal. We had to postpone her appearance because she didn't get it in time. Will all that be taken into account?

People are worried. They haven't heard anything since September 25. What should they expect in the coming days?

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

The direction given to Canada Post was very clear: respect its obligation to continue serving rural and remote communities, because we consider that to be an essential service.

In fact, the decision to go ahead with the changes that were announced stems precisely from the fact that Canada Post is a vital institution to the country. It is more vital in Canada and Quebec than postal services in other countries, because of our vast territory and the geographic location of some communities, who need that service.

When I announced the changes, my objective was to make sure we saved Canada Post and maintained a good level of service in those communities.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Thank you, Minister.

We'll now start our five-minute rounds with Mrs. Block, please.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I'm going to cede my time to Mr. Boulerice.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Mr. Boulerice, welcome back to OGGO.

The floor is yours for five minutes, please.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Welcome, Minister.

I'm disappointed and sad. A few years ago, you were against cutting home delivery, but you flip-flopped. Today, as a direct result of the cuts, four million Canadians will see their service interrupted. They will no longer be entitled to the service they had been receiving, because you changed your mind.

I represent the riding of Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, a densely populated urban area where community mailboxes will be forced on everyone, because the services they were accustomed to receiving for decades are being cut. My first question is very simple. Where in the riding are you going to install the community mailboxes?

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

Let me start by saying that this is my first time before the committee, and what a pleasant surprise it is to see the level of co-operation between the Conservative Party and the NDP. That's not something you see every day. My hats off to you, Mrs. Block, for letting the member have your speaking time.

Mr. Boulerice, I'm delighted to be able to answer your question. First, I want to point out that 77% of Canadians already get their mail through community mailboxes, rural mailboxes or a centralized mailbox in their apartment building. That means they don't have home delivery per se.

Second, I want to respond to what you said about me, specifically that I am now in favour of cuts when I wasn't 10 years ago. The fact is that, 10 years ago, Canadians were receiving a lot more mail at home than they are today. On average, a Quebec household receives two letters a week; that number was seven 20 years ago.

Just to be sure, there was a—

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Minister, your 77% figure is wrong. You're counting apartment mailboxes, which are at the entrance on the ground floor. You're including them in your 77%, but that is home delivery.

You didn't answer my very specific question. Where in Rosemont—La Petite‑Patrie are the community mailboxes going to go? There's no room for them. Are you going to put them in schoolyards, parks? Are you going to buy studio apartments? Are you going to rent space? Where are you going to set up the community mailboxes?

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

That decision is up to Canada Post. I can't give you information about a specific community.

I can tell you, though, that Canada Post has experience with transitions. Some communities used to have door-to-door delivery but now get their mail through community mailboxes.

As I said, the people in my riding who had home delivery are largely in favour of getting their mail through community mailboxes, for the reasons I just mentioned. They, too, are aware of this new reality.

Door-to-door delivery costs $279 a year, whereas community mailbox delivery costs $157 a year, so home delivery is more expensive. I think reasonable Canadians who are aware of Canada Post's financial situation realize that going to a community mailbox to get their mail is the lesser evil, so to speak.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

You're not answering the question.

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

For those who can't—

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

If you have to rent space to accommodate community mailboxes in Rosemont—La Petite‑Patrie, it's going to cost money. I don't see how that's a better option, considering the figures you're giving us.

Nevertheless, I'll ask you something else.

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

It's $400 million a year.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Five minutes is all I have, and I have another question.

The last time Canada Post turned a profit was 2017. Since then, the Liberal Party of Canada, your party, has been in power, so it has let the Crown corporation's financial situation deteriorate.

All you talk about is letter mail, never parcels. Canada Post used to have 60% of the parcel delivery market. Today, that share sits at 20%, and your party has done absolutely nothing about it. Why did you let Canada Post's parcel delivery business wither away?

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

A number of things account for that decline at Canada Post. For instance, because of its operational constraints, Canada Post does not have a lot of flexibility when it comes to weekend delivery. It needs that option given what we know about Canadians' expectations for parcel delivery: very fast service. I think that certainly contributed to the decline.

I hope the union and management will be able to come to an agreement on that and reach a deal that makes Canada Post much more competitive in the parcel delivery market.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

The union and many others have been proposing a solution for years. It is yet another example of something the Liberal Party did not do. According to Ann Armstrong, a professor at the University of Toronto's Institute for Management and Innovation, Canada Post could have generated more revenue by expanding postal services, like Japan did years ago.

The UN's Universal Postal Union did a survey and found that 84% of countries provide financial services through their mail carrier. That's additional revenue that could have helped Canada Post, and the Liberal Party did nothing on that front.

Why do you still stubbornly refuse to let Canada Post offer banking services, something that would bring in revenue and keep people employed?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

I have to interrupt. I'm afraid you haven't left time for a response, Mr. Boulerice, but perhaps on another round, or perhaps with Ms. Rochefort....

Go ahead for five minutes, please, Ms. Rochefort.

[Pauline Rochefort, Liberal, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Minister, I want to say that in my riding of Nipissing—Timiskaming, which is a rural-urban riding to some extent, a number of citizens have mentioned to me how they find you to be an excellent communicator. As a result of the manner in which you—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!